a submission on sustainable transport

A SUBMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORT
PRESENTED TO THE
BY SEGWAY IRELAND
DATE : 30th April 2008
www.segway.ie
1
ABSTRACT
The following submission outlines the details and facts pertaining to the Segway® PT
(Personal Transporter).
The submission herein describes in detail how the Segway PT has a part to play in
modern Ireland and demonstrates that electric devices are practical, cost effective
and will perform intended tasks very efficiently – all that is required is a shift in
thinking.
The Segway PT is a two wheel self balancing personal mobility device designed to
carry a single person and their personal items.
Occupying a space equivalent to ONE human being, the Segway PT behaves like a
pedestrian allowing ease of use in pedestrian areas and urban environments.
The Segway PT has a maximum speed of 20kmh and can operate on roads in a
manner similar to bicycles.
The Segway PT is battery powered and requires 1 unit (1kWhr) of power to provide a
range of 38km on a single charge.
There is no noise or emissions from the Segway at point of use.
Throughout the submission, data and studies will be provided to illustrate the
environmental benefits of Segway Technology.
The submission will also demonstrate how the Segway PT will present a viable and
green alternative to the car and how it can be used to improve our transport
infrastructure.
In Ireland legislation needs to be defined in order to clarify the position of the
Segway PT and its role in urban transportation. At present this is a barrier to entry in
the market and a hindrance in achieving the design objectives of the Segway PT.
The current Road Traffic Act classifies the Segway as a Mechanically Propelled
Vehicle, yet the Segway PT’s design, safety systems and behaviour make such
classification unpractical.
Many European countries have already legislated to allow use of the Segway PT.
Furthermore, certain countries are allowing the integrated use of Segway technology
into rail networks and rental facilities.
The European Commission has exempted the Segway PT from its vehicle legislation,
releasing it from regulation as a road vehicle (ref. letter of 12 July 2002).
The European Parliament, in a letter from the Chairman of the Transport Committee
invites all Member States to authorize explicitly and as soon as possible the use of
the Segway HT (ref letter of 27 May 2003).
Urgent consideration of re-classification is called for so that the express intention of
the European Commission and European Parliament can be realised so that Ireland
can begin to benefit from Segway Technology.
2
Document Index
Introduction
4
Executive Summary
6
The Segway PT
6
Revolution or Evolution
7
Reasons for the Segway PT consideration
7
Conclusion
8
A Solution for Ireland
9
The congestion issue due to cars
10
Buses in the Dublin Area
13
The Rail Network
14
The Environmental issue
17
Cycling and the Segway PT
19
Technical comparison between a Bicycle and a Segway
20
The Segway Commute
23
First and Last Mile Issues
25
The Commercial Market
27
A Segway city
28
Appendix
31
3
Introduction
In 1899, Henry Ford had started to build his first gas-powered car in a rented garage in
Detroit. Although his ingenuity took the assembly line method of production to new heights
of efficiency, he was first and foremost a visionary and an obsessive, an individual who
implicitly foresaw the opportunity to create a mass market for affordable, family
transportation. However, it is his Production Line Concept that is the most remembered and
significant of his contributions to the modern industrial era.
Take some of his many quotes –
“Any colour as long as it’s Black”
“If I asked the customer what they wanted, they would have answered a faster horse”
“Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes off your goal”
Let us take the middle quote and expand on it as an example of lateral thinking. What if Mr
Ford had asked a customer “What do you want” and the customer has answered “I want a
faster horse”.
Would it be fair to assume that one of the greatest entrepreneurs of all time have stopped
there or would he have tried to gain a better understanding of the real reasons?
Henry:
Customer:
Henry:
Customer:
“Why do you want a faster horse?”
“So I can get to the store in less time.”
“Why do you want to get to the store faster?”
“So I can get more work done at the farm.”
So the customer didn’t want a faster horse! They wanted to get more work done. And
presumably the car that Mr Ford created provided that benefit.
This proves that for progress and innovation, a deep understanding of your customers —
their problems, their needs, expressed or unexpressed is required.
The anecdote above is more relevant today than it was back then; people’s most valuable
resource is their time. Time is a non-tradable entity, time cannot be bought or sold only
utilised more efficiently. Time will motivate individuals to change habits, particularly if it
allows more time for other preferred activities, e.g. family, work and recreation.
Limiting transport choices, restrict individual’s abilities to move freely and efficiently. This can
result in people viewing the car as the only truly flexible option available to them, further
compounding the problem of increased traffic, congestion, pollution, road safety and all the
other associated challenges of transport in an urban environment.
The subsequent content of this document proposes to make changes from a different angle
utilising the tools that are currently available. – The Segway® Personal Transporter. By
making small but significant changes the public will come to understand the benefits of the
Segway PT’s technology for themselves.
In conclusion there are two quotes that are very significant – for their simplicity and ideology
and represent the forward thinking of this proposal.
Henry Ford : “Obstacles are those frightful things you see when you take your eyes
off your goal”
John Deere:
“Progress depends on how fast we can let go of the past”
___________________________________
4
What does Ireland need to meet the modern requirements of travel in society today?
Travel requires the appropriate tool for the job, there is no one size fits all and it is a
combination of solutions that society requires. The simple graphic below will demonstrate this
concept and it shows the relationship between types of transport, capacities, speeds and
distance.
All these methods are relevant to the distances and time requirements of a modern society.
The categories are generalised and not limited to the modes shown but they are
representative of what is available.
For long distances a plane is an efficient way of moving a substantial quantity of people huge
distances very quickly. Its speed and comfort facilitate travel of huge distances. A 747-400,
75% loaded on a long haul flight could deliver approx 40mpg per person. This figure can vary
hugely with loading and distance between airports – short hauls flights would not be as
efficient due to lack of time at cruising speed.
Trains are fast and comfortable and for intercity travel the high speed trains are a fantastic
vehicle. Their urban counterparts are also hugely efficient in moving significant numbers of
people quickly and efficiently. They are restricted by the requirements for rail lines and thus
need to be supported by supplementary solutions at either end to complete the remainder of
the journey.
Cars are very flexible in an intercity / extra urban environment. If they are fully loaded and
driven reasonable distances they have a place in society. In a heavily congested slow speed
urban environment they loose this advantage and the shorter the distance the less practical
and inefficient they become particularly if they have a single occupant..
Buses overlap in the last three segments and when reasonably loaded they are an excellent
method of transport. Downsides are dedicated routes and scheduled timetables may not suit
everyone. They are also subject traffic congestion which can result in delays.
The last segment, the shortest distance can often take the longest due to congestion and
traffic delays. It is here that creative thinking is required in order to maximise the
aforementioned modes of transport.
It is here that the Segway® PT (Personal Transporter) has its role to play along with the
Bicycle, Walking and possibly other devices yet to be invented. This segment presents the
opportunities to make the most significant gains in terms of time, pollution and social
interaction. Being creative in this area can lead to changes in thinking, quicker and more cost
effectively than in any of the other segments as this is where the least amount of
infrastructural development is required.
5
Executive Summary:
Almost six years after its presentation and three years after the Segway® PT was first
introduced in Europe, it is time to start analyzing the concrete function that this device is
taking in the mobility spectrum.
In addition to an assessment of what is making the self balancing technology one of the most
interesting and promising solutions for personal transportation within urban areas, this
document presents a comparative analysis of transport within Ireland and focuses
significantly on congestion in urban areas. The segment addressed hereafter will focus on
the urban commuter, the current options, their benefits and shortcomings and the role that
the Segway® PT has to play in enhancing the current infrastructure.
Primary considerations have been outlined above but it is important to highlight the current
role of the Segway in Commercial applications, Policing, Security and Medical response. The
Appendix will contain supplementary documentation identifying these benefits. Details on
what legislative devices were put into place to integrate the PT within the European legal
system are also included as a matter of reference for your information.
The points developed in this document outline the requirements to change the current Road
Traffic Act and its definitions. Presently a Segway falls into the classification of Mechanically
Propelled Vehicle. This is not an appropriate classification and as such presents a huge
barrier for entry to the marketplace. Urgent consideration for re-classification is called for, to
facilitate the Segway PT and any other future technologies.
The Segway PT (Personal Transporter)
The Segway PT is a two wheeled personal transport
system that has been designed to be as intuitive to use
as walking.
If you lean forward – as you do when you start to walk –
it moves forward. To stop lean back, it slows down,
stops and begins to move in reverse. It becomes an
extension of your body. Lean left or right and the PT
follows your body movements intuitively.
To verbally explain the technology is virtually impossible
and in consideration of the difficulty that may exist in
believing that such technology actually works and more
unbelievably is easy to use we would be delighted to
demonstrate the units at any time or location of your
choosing.
The Segway PT Specifications
Maximum Speed
Maximum Range
Maximum Payload
Weight
20kph
38km
115kg
48kg
6
Revolution or Evolution?
When in December 2001 inventor Dean Kamen unveiled the Segway PT, the world saluted
it as the first true invention of the New Millennium. The uniqueness and the potential of the
self-balancing technology combined with the hype that surrounded the launch created the
unreasonable expectation that a revolution in urban transport would take place overnight.
Almost six years after that announcement, it’s time to make an assessment of what the
potential of the technology is and take a realistic look at the reasons why the ratio for the
announced revolution not only is still there but has in many ways been reinforced by the
evolution of external factors such as increased congestion and pollution, increased cost of
energy and awareness about these issues worldwide.
History suggests that the mass adoption of any new technology takes decades and that
successful ideas tend to configure evolutions before they trigger revolutions. Having said this
there are some evolving signals that are fair to interpret as anticipations of what could very
well turn into a revolution.
In this paper we’ll analyze the Segway PT evolution from two perspectives. The first is the
evolution of the Segway PT business in Europe and in particular Ireland where it is
reasonable to expect that this technology will have considerable impact in the medium term.
The other one is a commercial segment that is proving to be the vehicle of Segway’s current
success: security.
Reasons for Segway PT consideration?
Current Urban congestion is growing at an alarming rate. Environmental issues and rising oil
prices are becoming a real economic concern for Ireland as we move forward. Taking all
these items into consideration the following points highlight some of the reasons for the
argument in favour of the Segway® PT as an urban commuting tool.
Small Footprint of 25” x 25”, (0.635m x 0.635m = .4m2).
Extremely efficient 1kWh = 38km range (1 kWh = 1 Unit, 15c).
Behaves like a pedestrian in pedestrian environments.
Behaves like a runner / cyclist at higher speeds.
Allows for social interaction with fellow users, cyclists and pedestrians.
Maximum speed limited to 20kph, similar to average cyclist or good runner.
Has state of the art redundant safety systems and alarms for user safety.
The Segway cannot “coast” or “freewheel” it is always “actively driven”.
Can be charged at any standard outlet
Will fit through any standard doorway – easily brought inside
Offers excellent visibility for rider and other road users due to raised and upright
riding position.
Can integrate into public transport infrastructure networks.
Fits perfectly within the current DTO Cycle Policy.
Works very well in first and last mile commuting situations.
Ideal Park and Ride solution requiring a minimum of storage space – 14 Segways in a
single 2.4m x 4.8m standard EU car parking space.
Easily transported on rail and buses at off peak periods.
7
Conclusion
Why use a 1,500kg vehicle to transport a person weighing 100kgs when a unit
weighing less than 50kgs can do the same task just as quickly and more
efficiently?
This submission paper is intended to provide an outline of the capabilities of a technology like
the Segway PT and what it can do for mobility in an urban environment. From a technical
and scientific perspective the data enclosed demonstrates consistently that the Segway PT
has merit and deserves serious consideration.
Thanks to the massive adoption by police forces worldwide, today the Segway PT can be
considered a mature technology and should be part of any policy that intends to address
urban mobility challenges in a truly innovative way.
There is no way to describe effectively how much the Segway PT can do to induce the much
needed change in the widespread perception that electric devices are unpractical, costly and
underperforming. The Segway PT does however have one characteristic that may seem
trivial or could prove very significant in promoting change – using a Segway is actually fun.
For this reason, we would welcome the opportunity to present to the Joint Committee on
Transport, the technology and vision in person, allowing you and your colleagues to engage
the Segway PT first hand.
This has been done effectively in other European countries and at European Parliament level
and in all cases our input received a great deal of enthusiasm and appreciation.
We look forward to your comments and questions.
For further information please contact:
Martin Butler
Director
Segway Ireland
Maxem Technologies Ltd.,
Unit D2,
Southern Link Business Park,
Naas, Co. Kildare.
Email
Web
Office
Mobile
[email protected]
www.segway.ie
+353 45 889 529
+353 87 271 3077
8
A solution for Ireland?
When confronted with the nature of Segway PT technology and the concept of the
empowered pedestrian, observers are first tempted to dismiss it as an American invention for
American people. Images of large pedestrian areas – Californian Venice beach - or crowded
pavements in huge metropolitan areas – NY, 5th Avenue – come to mind. Nothing is more
misleading. The simple fact that many cities in the US were created or developed
simultaneously with the advent of the car or in many instances - around the car should
suggest otherwise.
Historical pre-urbanization maps of European cities suggest that the urban traits of Old
Continent cities have maintained their identity and structure over the centuries.
In short, the great majority of Irish city centres were created for and are still meant to be
travelled by something different than a car. Higher population density, higher cost of energy,
higher levels of congestion and pollution, shorter commuting trips and the pedestrian-friendly
structure of city centres are incontrovertibly suggesting that Europe including Irish cities are
proving a natural environment for the Segway PT.
In the context of this of this submission the Public Consultation Document defined several
areas for consideration, travel within cities, commuting towns, general traffic congestion in
Dublin and commuting towns, Bus and Rail. With this in mind, the problem be can broken
down into several component parts, analysed and discussed with a view to maximizing the
existing resources with a minimum of expenditure.
The primary modes of transport are expanded on within the document. A summary table is
shown below. The six options are detailed and each are scored out of a possible maximum of
5 points, 1 being least favourable and 5 being most favourable. This table is not scientific but
a simplistic comparative analysis of urban transportation options.
Walking
Car
Bus
Rail
Cycling
Segway
Summary
Speed
1
2
2
5
4
4
Flexibility
5
4
3
2
5
5
Cost
5
1
4
4
5
4
Social
5
1
3
3
5
5
Environmental
5
1
3
4
5
4
Totals
21
9
15
18
24
22
1= Poor, 5 = Very Good
Based on the simplified table above it is very apparent that the Segway compares favourably
to Walking and Cycling. The Segway is NOT intended to replace these two activities as there
are immeasurable health benefits to both of these modes of activity.
Consider the Segway in the context of the car, bus and rail. In an urban environment the
argument for the Segway and its role in an urban situation are very clear. A Segway will
perform better than a car and deliver a complimentary benefit to the public transport sector.
Consider the bigger picture for a moment – there is the possibility that over time, the Segway
could become a viable alternative to the car. This change comes with time and increased
usage, with increased usage comes acceptance and then perhaps the norm.
An evolution of a shift in thinking such as this would have many more benefits, more people
could consider cycling due to the reduced numbers of cars and increased feeling of safety.
Public transport could be better utilised.
Reflect on Henry Ford and John Deere – perhaps it is time for a new type of transportation.
9
The congestion issue due to cars:
In recent months there has been much publicized about the traffic issues in Dublin and
around the country. Speaking in the Dail several weeks ago, The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern said:
“We cannot continue the way we have been where everybody drives from A to regardless
and with no restrictions. We must face up to what other cities are dealing with, sooner
rather than later. If we are serious about emissions and congestion, we cannot continue the
way we have been.” He went on to say “That was alright when we had 500,000 vehicles but
we have 2.5 million now and the number is rising. We have a population of 4.3 million and
we have 2.5 million registered vehicles. I am told with certainty by the CSO that we will have
five million people in 12 years’ time.”
Mr. Ahern noted that “If the number of vehicles increases beyond three million, one cannot
continue operating with ‘no entry’ zones, particularly in Dublin and cities such as Cork, which
is not much different.” Currently the infrastructure presently in place was designed and built
based on CSO figures, indicating a population of 3.4 million by 2010, however here we are
with 4.3 million and it is only 2008. There have been many ideas discussed, such as Park
and Ride and the concept of congestion charges.
Consider some of the facts below relating to this congestion and the impact that it has on
society and commuting. These are also reflected in Chapter 1 of the Sustainable Travel and
Transport, Public Consultation Document.
The Data below was published by the Dublin Transport office on their website indicating the
distance travelled to work by car based on the 2002 Census.
The vertical axis is the number of trips and the Horizontal axes corresponds to the distance
travelled in miles.
Based on the above graph (see appendix for full copy) the significant figures are as follows
49.9% of the journeys to work in Dublin are between 0-6 miles or 0 - 9.6km,
This is a total of 170,000 trips one way to work.
10
The current CSO publication, 2006 Census of Population – Volume 12 – Travel to
Work, School and College; makes some very interesting comments in the Press release
(full copy of Press Release in Appendix)
Full report available here http://www.cso.ie/census/census2006_volume_12.htm
1. The number of persons driving to work by car, lorry or van increased by over 225,000
between 2002 and 2006, an increase of 22%, according to a new report from the Central
Statistics Office.
2. Of the 1.9 million workers in the State in April 2006, almost 1.1m (57%) drove a car to
work – up from 55% in 2002. When combined with workers who travelled to work as car
passengers or as van/lorry drivers seven out of ten of workers were private vehicle users in
2006.
3. While the overall number of bus users increased slightly, the share of public transport by
bus fell from 6.7% in 2002 to 6.1% in 2006. The number of persons commuting to work by
rail increased by over 66% compared with 2002 reflecting the introduction of the LUAS.
4. Train usage by workers was highest in Dublin’s north county area with Donabate (26%),
Skerries (24%), Portmarnock and Malahide (both 20%) most prominent.
There are two tables relevant to this calculation in Volume 12, tables 84 and 85.
Taking table 85 for a similar calculation as above and it must be noted that this table
specifies distance to work and access to a car it does not clearly say whether or not they use
the car. However the correlation between both graphs and taking into account the statement
above by the CSO, the data would appear to correlate.
Greater Dublin Area Commute to Work and access to a Car
120,000.00
No. of Journeys
100,000.00
80,000.00
60,000.00
40,000.00
20,000.00
0 kms
1 kms
2 to 4
kms
5 to 9
kms
10 to 14 15 to 24 25 to 49 50 kms
kms
kms
kms
+
Distance travelled
The significant numbers here from the 2006 Census are as follows
1. 56.28% of people live less than 9kms to their place of employment
2. This could be a potential of 204,000 trips if they all drove the cars that they own.
Further details are highlighted on the following page outlining the figures for the other major
cities in the country.
11
The table below shows a similar trend throughout the major cites.
Distance travelled to work and access to a car
0 kms
Dublin City
1 kms
2 to 4 kms
5 to 9 kms
9km or Less
% 9 km or
Less
1,109.00
10,826.00
38,279.00
40,828.00
91,042.00
71.96
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown
736.00
3,405.00
12,682.00
21,357.00
38,180.00
58.58
Fingal
696.00
3,975.00
10,601.00
15,579.00
30,851.00
35.05
South Dublin
478.00
3,739.00
14,547.00
25,569.00
44,333.00
53.09
Cork City
235.00
3,546.00
10,217.00
7,919.00
21,917.00
73.32
Limerick City
81.00
1,594.00
4,705.00
3,165.00
9,545.00
74.90
Waterford City
93.00
1,679.00
5,783.00
3,238.00
10,793.00
84.06
Galway City
Total Potential City
Journeys
Percentage of Potential
Journeys
198.00
2,529.00
8,296.00
6,111.00
17,134.00
79.40
3,626.00
31,293.00
105,110.00
123,766.00
263,795.00
0.82
7.11
23.87
28.11
59.92
So it would appear that the growing level of car ownership is a major factor in the increase in
congestion in our cities and roads. While the above figures are based on an assumption, it
would still be accurate to that a very significant number of these car owners would use a car
to commute to work at some stage.
The big question here is this usage increasing or decreasing. This becomes a juggling act as
if it is increasing, then why is that, is it because public transports is seen as being slow,
inflexible and unreliable. If that is the case and the usage increases then Public Transport
will become slower and unreliable as the Public Transport network and in particular busses
will become clogged on the road network due to people increasing the use of the cars. This
situation has the potential to become a self fulfilling prophecy.
This data is also correlated by the Dublin Transportation Offices report on Road Use
Monitoring – published in November 2006. Figure 3.1 below is an extract from this document
– copy available online http://www.dto.ie/web2006/rum2006.pdf
12
Buses in the Dublin area –
Several Quality Bus Corridor services have been set up and while they have improved the
service but yet we are still seeing huge numbers of cars still on the roads
Their Goal: to provide a clearly defined, high performance bus transportation
system segregated from other road traffic.
The QBC’s have set targeted average bus speeds to attain of 20kph and these have not been
reached. This is not through faults of the buses or drivers but for the simple fact that they
are subject to usage of the same roads as other vehicles, namely cars and trucks. Buses by
their nature are large and in the event of any bottleneck or incident, their movement will be
severely impacted.
The QBC Monitoring Report published by the Dublin Transport Office in November 2006
details the findings on the nine main Radial QBC into Dublin, these being :
Blanchardstown, Finglas, Lucan, Malahide, North Clondalkin, Rathfarnham, Stillorgan, Swords
and Tallaght.
The average bus speeds for these routes for the last three years are as follows :Year
2004
2005
2006
AM Peak
13.86 kph
13.58 kph
12.75 kph
PM Peak
13.15 kph
14.26 kph
14.63 kph
While the objective speed of 20kph has not been achieved, they are consistent and given the
increase in traffic over the period of time, meaning this level of consistency could be classed
as an improvement in real terms.
The Wait time for a bus at the peak travel times is between 3 and 5 minutes which should be
more than acceptable. So in light of that report it would appear that the QBC system works
well and achieves its goals and objectives.
The more important question however – is does the QBC address the needs of the
commuting public?
If a commuter lives on a QBC and is a “radial commuter” to or from the city center, then the
QBC system works well. The issue arises when a commuter must traverse circumferentially
around the city in order to get to his or her place of work. In this case a trip into the city
center and another one back out on another route is not going to be the preferred option.
This is when the commuter will turn to an alternative or in many cases opt to drive. The CSO
noted in its report on the 2006 Census, an increase of 225,000 or 22% of people commuting
to work via car, lorry or van.
QBC Summary and suggested next steps
So given that the current QBC system has been a success, the next step should be a
circumferential QBC system feeding the Radial system and also the rail stations to include
them in the network. Unfortunately the downside of this is that the buses still must use the
already clogged road network, require an integrated ticketing system and are limited to their
use as Park and Ride solution – due to the obvious parking issues.
Note – the DTO QBC report may be found here – relevant table of data in the Appendix.
http://www.dto.ie/web2006/QBCmon2006.pdf
13
The Rail Network
The rail network is a key component in any urban and inter-city transportation. Rail is
independent of roads, safe, fast and highly efficient. Commuters use rail where available due
to the reliability and speed.
The downside of rail are outlined below –
• Cost of expansion, limited rail space.
• Cost of rolling stock, only required for peak loading.
• Cost of infrastructure, new stations, signalling etc.
• Accessibility for users, proximity to stations.
• Fixed access points and departure points
Service Frequency - Rail has real potential if frequencies were to be increased beyond peak
times. Opening these non peak services up to more flexibility and usage or reduced fares to
encourage usage. Rail networks will always be at capacity at peak times and once more
capacity is added it will be filled. The downside of this is that less usage occurs off peak,
hence the importance of making off peak travel more attractive / flexible.
First and Last Mile - Rail is subject to a significant human trait and this is “First and last
mile consideration.” The average human being will walk typically between 3 and 4 mph, thus
a mile will take approximately 20mins, longer if wearing a heavy coat or carrying a briefcase.
Therefore it is widely accepted that the critical distance from a public transport start or
endpoint will be in the region of 1 mile or 1.5km, less than a 20 minute walk for the average
person to consistently use public transport. Beyond this 20 minute comfort zone, many will
opt to drive.
Infrastructure - Rail typically has stations, staff and security. Many have parking and in the
majority of cases this facility is full very early in the morning with the first commuters making
their way to work. The key to rail lies in feeding the rail network, via local bus services,
secure storage facilities for bicycles and alternative transportation such as the Segway.
Off-Peak Utilization - The flexibility of being able to take a bicycle or Segway onto the rail
network at off peak times would greatly increase the flexibility and attractiveness of the
service as it removes any first and last mile issues. Consider commuters making their way to
the station on their preferred transportation device, bring it on and take it off at their
destination, thus expanding hugely the catchment area for the rail network and utilising the
network more at off peak times.
Parking - A typical EU car parking space dimension is 2.4m x 4.8m, this space would store in
the region of 8 to 10 bicycles or 14 Segways, allowing ease of access for commuters to
remove and store them. That one car space and one driver could be utilised by 8-14 others,
potentially removing 8-14 cars from the road.
Catchment Area - Consider expanding the catchment area for rail – lets remove this 20
minute psychological obstacle and just double the distance to 2 miles or 3 kms. This could
easily be achieved by the utilization of a Segway. Cyclists by their nature are already
covering this distance and further but how many people are using their car for this distance
on any typical morning in Dublin?
Double the Catchment area - The following page takes approx 25 station in Dublin and
outlines a circle of radius 3km / 2 miles around the station - just doubling the catchment area
for the station. The results are truly startling in terms of the amount of the city that can be
covered by such a scheme and at little or no cost to the taxpayer.
14
Increased accessibility of Dublin by doubling the rail networks catchment area.
20 Minute Barrier - 3km on a Segway or Bicycle would take approximately 10 minutes so
expanding this model by 1 or 2 km more has an even more dramatic effect and would still be
approximately 15 minutes ride or Glide time. Still within this psychological 20 minute barrier
Accessibility - The increase in accessibility to the rail network could be hugely increased by
facilitating the use of Segways and bicycles. This would come at a cost of a few car parking
spaces and the will of the authorities to enforce safety of such users on the roads. Over time
increased users should result in less cars and increased safety by default.
Benefit Summary
Costs on implementation by the rail network and the Government would be minimal.
Utilisation and uptake could be greatly improved by allowing customers to take their Segway
or bicycle on the train at low volume / off peak periods to facilitate the continuation of their
journey on the other side. Thus greatly improving the utilization of an already existing
service.
Being flexible as above could encourage commuters to leave their car at home and take
public transport. Increasing the viability of rail at off peak and allowing the buses to move
more freely due to a reduction in the number of cars on the roads at peak times.
15
The Inter-City model
The above example was just for Dublin but there is no reason why a similar model could not
be employed for inter-city travel. An example of a trip from Dublin to Cork illustrates this and
for the purpose of this scenario lets use an aeroplane rather than a car.
Consider the scenario of a day business trip from an apartment in Docklands to Patrick Street
in Cork. Perhaps a software engineer, accountant, retired person visiting a friend etc. The
application is relevant to any individual.
Air –
Taxi from Docklands to Airport Wait time in Airport Flight time Taxi to Patrick St -
30
60
50
30
Total Journey time –
Cost approx -
2hrs 50mins
€100.00 one way.
Glide and Ride –
mins
mins
mins
mins
Segway, Docklands to Heuston Station 4km Train, Heuston to Cork
Segway / Bicycle charge
Segway, Kent Station to Patrick St. 2km -
20 mins
2hrs 50 mins
Total Journey time –
Cost approx
3 Hrs 20 mins
€51.03
10 mins
€20.00
€60.00
€20.00
€ 0.02
€45.00
€ 6.00
€ 0.01
Travelling by Train with current rail network takes 30 mins longer but allows for 2.5 hours of
relaxed work time / leisure time on the train. With the arrival of the new proposed high
speed rail service and a journey time of 2 hours the train option would be 2hrs 20mins, a
time saving of 20 minutes when compared with the comparative trip by air not to mention
the savings in price.
16
The Environmental issue
The EPA’s report on IRELAND’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2006 noted the
following points
Overall
• Total GHG emissions in 2006 were 69.77 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt
CO2eq), which is 0.8 percent lower than the level of emissions in 2005.
Transport
• Transport continues to be the dominant growth sector with emissions at 682,000 tonnes
higher in 2006 than in 2005. This represents a 5.2 percent increase on 2005 levels and 165
percent increase on the 1990 transport emissions.
• Road transport accounts for 97 percent of the transport sector emissions.
• The increase in the GHG emissions from the transport sector reflects sustained increases in
fuel consumption with petrol usage up 3.4 percent and diesel consumption up 7.9 percent
from the previous year.
Changes in Emissions from Sectors between 2005 and 2006
Notable changes in 2006 compared to 2005 are:
• Transport emissions increased by 5.2 percent from 13.037 Mt CO2eq in 2005 to 13.719 Mt
CO2eq in 2006. This follows an increase of approximately 6.2 percent in the previous year.
Road transport accounts for 97 percent of transport emissions and is the main contributor to
the increase in the national total;
Kyoto Protocol
• Ireland’s target in relation to the Kyoto Protocol is to limit emissions to 13 percent above
the baseline estimate in the period 2008-2012. Based on the latest inventory figures,
Ireland’s emissions in 2006 were 25.5 percent higher than the baseline estimate that
underlies Ireland’s allowable emissions for the period 2008-2012, as agreed in the peer
review of Ireland’s 2006 submission to the UNFCCC.
This brings us to the issue of carbon credits – Currently Ireland can but these at the going
rate of €23.10 per tonne. The European Commission proposes to limit the capacity of rich
countries to do this and it is quite possible that heavier fines could become the norm.
Transport therefore is extremely important in terms of returning to the levels defined by the
agreement and in making dramatic steps forward in reducing the overall CO2 emissions
levels.
Whatever happens it is clear that the car as a means of urban transport is not the solution.
That is not to say that the car does not have a place because it does, as a means of
transporting people and goods, outside an urban center, the car is a particularly efficient tool,
offering flexibility that will be hard to replace. However in an urban environment, there
needs to be a dramatic shift to public transport and encouragement of alternative forms of
private transport that are small, easily implemented and very efficient. Here is where the
Segway has its part to play.
17
How does the Segway offer a benefit in an emissions context?
The Segway is completely electric, therefore it emits no pollution while in use. That is to say
that it makes virtually no noise and no pollutants are emitted directly from the unit. The unit
is also designed in accordance with the RoHs directive in terms of materials used in its
construction. Structural materials used are Aluminium and the batteries are recyclable.
The Segway itself has zero emissions while being used. The Segway does require electricity
to charge and here is where the pollution may be factored in if required. However as in the
case of cars the CO2 emissions from Well to Pump is not used and therefore for the purpose
of the calculation below, the same rules have been applied. Should you wish to factor in
these emissions the figures are outlined below.
A full charge requires 1 Unit (1kWh).
ESB, the CO2 emissions to produce 1kWh is 549g.
Airtricity using 89% renewables 1kWh produces 60.3g
The Segway has a maximum rage of 38km on a single charge.
ESB charge – 14.5g/km
Airtricity charge – 1.6g/km
Cost of a full charge approx 15c
Equivalent of 300km per litre of petrol / diesel (€1.20 l)
1,000,000 people use cars to commute to work everyday in Ireland – Table 84, Vol
12, 2006 Census.
“Workers travelled on average 15.8 km from their homes to their workplaces in
2006, little change on 2002. Rural based workers travelled an average of 20.9 km
compared with 12.8 km for workers living in urban areas.” – source CSO Press
Release on Vol 12.
Lets say 50% (56% nationally have access to a car and live within 9 km of
employment) live in Urban areas and commute the 12.8km to work.
These are the numbers based on the facts above:
Kilometres driven to and back from work per day
Small Car emissions – 150g/km
Covert this daily amount to metric tons
Average person works 5 days, 45 weeks
12,800,000 kms
1,920,000 kg CO2
1,920 ton CO2
432,000 ton CO2
If 10% of these urban kms were completed on a Segway PT – what would be the difference?
THIS WOULD PRODUCE AN ANNUAL SAVING OF = 43,200 Ton CO2
or
Based on the Kyoto Protocols monetary penalties € 997,920.00 per annum in fines
Now let us ask an extremely important question?
How many other journeys are made by car – excluding work that could be
completed on a Segway?
For example – a trip to the shops, the bank, the post office, etc.
These trips are when a car operates at its least efficient and has the highest emissions and
merit serious consideration in the context of an overall environmental strategy. These short
journeys locally are a huge factor in contributing to the general congestion and pollution in
any urban environment.
18
Cycling and the Segway PT – some simple facts and why they are important.
This far we have looked at cars – the cause of our congestion and pollutions issues, how they
impact buses and the effects that they have in terms of reducing their efficiency. We have
also looked at rail – a very real consideration any urban commuting environment, but we
have also seen why they rail network is limited in maximising its real potential.
So lets run through cycling and why the Segway fits so nicely into the urban transportation
picture. The Dublin Transportation Office (DTO) published its final DTO Cycling Policy in
September 2006 to address cycling in the Greater Dublin Area. This policy also commits that
grants are available for the support and improvement of the cycling infrastructure.
The following information is extracted from this report, and is available for download from
this location http://www.dto.ie/web2006/cyclepolicy.pdf
DTO Cycling Policy
This Cycle Policy is a statement of intent by the Dublin Local Authorities, the DTO and other
members of the DTO Steering Committee as follows:
To enhance the cycling environment and facilitate cycling in the GDA by a variety of means,
including
• Creating a continuous cycle friendly environment on cycle routes, as required, by
o Reducing traffic volumes (in particular heavy vehicles) and slower traffic
o Improved and additional cycle infrastructure and priority and good quality road
surfaces
o Appropriate levels of enforcement
• Provision of sufficient and appropriately designed cycle parking facilities
• Cycle friendly planning and design of new developments
To promote cycling in the GDA through a variety of means including
• Training and other education measures, targeted in particular at those of school going
age
• Promoting cycling as a healthy activity
• Marketing of cycling as a sensible choice, focussed on areas where good potential for
cycling is identified, and where good quality cycle facilities exist
To further develop the GDA cycling strategy by
• Establishing a GDA Cycle Working Group, consisting of local authorities and other
relevant implementing/funding agencies
• Forming partnerships with other stakeholders, e.g. through the establishment of a Cycle
Forum in each local authority area.
• Further research and analysis of cycling behaviour and attitudes, focussing on cycling
for non-work or school purposes, and reasons for not cycling
• Setting realistic targets for growth in cycle use
• Preparing cycle programmes to support policy objectives
• Preparing a monitoring strategy to enable comparison of outcomes with targets set and
to inform future Cycle Policy reviews and programmes
19
DTO Policy, significant points – in particular “Reducing traffic volumes (in particular heavy
vehicles) and slower traffic.” Couple this with the article in the Irish Times (4th August 2007)
where the following was noted - the average speed in Dublin city is now as low as 15
km/hour. In the same article Dublin City Council recently confirmed that speed limits in the
city will be reduced to 30 km/h.
HGV Reduction - The Port Tunnel has reduced the large HGVs with the 5 axle ban in the
city. Next we have to remove the traffic volume – ie slow moving cars. In order to achieve
this there must be alternatives available, Bicycles being one but the reality of society today is
that a significant amount of people will not cycle for what ever reasons, irrespective of the
health benefits and many people are not able to cycle a bicycle for what ever reasons.
Bridging the Gap – The Segway PT is comparable to a bicycle in terms of performance yet
offers the added benefits that it can also behave as a pedestrian unlike a bicycle. This is
particularly relevant in congested areas.
A Technical Comparison between the Bicycle and the Segway PT
To highlight the similarities in terms of a Segway and a Bicycle I have referenced a document
published in the US in October 2004, Titled – “Characteristics of Emerging Road Users
and their Safety.”
There is a substantial amount of information in this publication and it is not limited to a
Bicycle and Segway but also references, Kick Scooters, Manual and Electric wheelchairs,
recumbent bikes, rollerblades etc. This document may be downloaded from this location
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04103/04103.pdf
Technical information within this document refers to the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide to the Development of Bicycle
Facilities, these references were use to compare the Segway to a Bicycle in terms of the
design criteria that would be required to accommodate the Segway in cycle lanes etc.
The Findings
“Characteristics of Segway Users
The data from this study provide information on the performance and manoeuvrability of the
Segway and how it might function within shared use paths, sidewalks, and streets. Table 1
shows how the Segway characteristics compare with the design values (for bicyclists) in the
AASHTO Guide. The Segway was not found to be the critical user for any design
criteria.”
20
A Segway only study was carried out in Germany “Segway in Public Places”
by “Institute for Mobility & Transport”, in April 2006 to assess how the Segway should be
classified and integrated into the German road network.
The pilot study took place between August 25 and November 30, 2005. It was accompanied
by several empirical measures: in the beginning and in the end of the pilot study period
comparative test-driving and braking tests took place on a defined circuit.
Places in the city of Saarbrücken und Neunkirchen known for high traffic density have been
video controlled all-day by a mounted camera. The videotapes have been examined using the
ViVAtraffic® system for video conflict analysis. Each of the 6 devices had its own riding
recorder, which enabled the pilot study participants to report directly, and timely existing and
potential conflicts, technical and handling problems as well as extraordinary situations. The
most important means of data collecting were 2 rounds of interviews held with all pilot study
participants, the first round after 3 weeks, the second one after termination of the practical
phase of the pilot trial. Additionally there was a telephone hotline for all unforeseen
eventualities, which allowed the participants to ask questions at any time during the pilot
study.
The results led to a recommendation for the road traffic regulatory handling and classification
of the Segway in Germany.
As a result of the findings, the recommendation was as follows –
Recommendation for admission
The German road traffic regulations define requirements and prerequisites for devices, their
assigned traffic areas and their road behaviour in public transport according to type of device
and not according to application.
All attempts to define the Segway within existing categories will therefore lead to the fact,
that requirements for the device are to be met, which technically are difficult to fulfil or which
are unreasonable with respect to the Segway’s use. It could happen that the Segway will be
classified to a traffic area in which it does not fit properly and in which the conflict - and
danger potential is very high for the rider as well as for other road users. In some cases the
Segway cannot use its specific advantages.
To fulfil all these requirements and to reflect the results of the pilot study we recommend
integrating the Segway as a »electric assistive mobility device«, as motorized vehicle of
special type, into the Straßenverkehrs- Zulassungsordnung StVZO (the road traffic licensing
regulations).
The use of the Segway should be allowed on cycle lanes, in traffic-calmed areas, in
pedestrian zones, in the last two with a limitation to walking speed. Like for motorassisted
bicycles a compulsory insurance seems advisable, an adjustment of the regulations for
insurance does not seem to be necessary. Correspondingly the Segways should only be
required to carry a small insurance plate. According to the Fahrerlaubnisverordnung (the
driver’s licence regulation) a rider’s licence is not necessary in this case, the training is
sufficient because the manufacturer links the sell of a Segway to obligatory riding tests and
as the pilot study has shown that mainly the riding experience and the riding skills improve
the safe handling of the Segway. There is a lower risk of accidents and less danger of falls
connected with the Segway in comparison to a bicycle. An analogous regulation of
recommending the use of a protective helmet without the obligation to wear a helmet seems
to be sufficient.
The technical equipment of the Segway is not yet sufficient for using it in public spaces. The
Segway should be equipped with a lighting facility as standard, like it is required for bicycles,
as standard it also should have a bell. According to the results of the pilot study the provided
21
brake technology seems to be sufficient for the recommended use, the equipment of the
device with rear-view mirror and speedo does not seem absolutely necessary.
A copy of the report is available from
http://www.segway.com/downloads/pdfs/safetystudies/german_study.pdf
Summary – The Segway PT compares favourably with a Bicycle
Based on the above reports, the Segway could operate and function in a cycling environment
without any additional infrastructure costs to society. The only cost factor would fall upon the
individual themselves to decide for themselves if the Segway was an appropriate solution for
their needs. This may even be justified by the reduced requirement for a second car, thus
benefiting traffic and pollution even further.
The development plan for the improvement of the cycling facilities has already been defined.
Cycling to work in the GDA has seen a reduction in numbers from 1996 to 2002 of 40%.
Thus the cycling policy needs to be utilized. Much of the resistance to cycling has a safety
consideration for many people, yet if you ask any cyclist which they would prefer to share
their road space with – A Segway or A Car, I think the answer will be unanimous.
22
The Segway Commute.
Dublin is the city that immediately springs to mind when we hear about traffic delays,
congestions, the M50, the Port Tunnel etc and with that in mind let us take a look at this
“sprawling” city with some basic facts and figures and the possibility that a Segway may
offer.
In conversations with individuals and commuters, many do not understand the size of the
City, they have a correlation in the minds between driving time and distance. Hence there is
this misconception that the M50 is 15 kms or more from the city centre. As the map below
shows – this is clearly not the case and it is a perception created by the time taken to
complete the journey by car – thus creating this “sprawling” impression when in reality the
city is quite compact.
The M50, is a ring road, circling the city at a radius of approx 8km.
Based on this fact, a commute from the Red Cow Roundabout to O’Connell Bridge would take
approximately 35 minutes on a Segway and cost less than €0.05.
The same Journey on the Luas will take approximately the same time to Abbey St, excluding
any walking time or wait times.
Effectively the Segway puts the entire city within easy reach, even a cross town trip could be
completed in less than one hour. The following page shows similar maps of Cork, Waterford,
Limerick and Galway with details on specifics on the city.
There is a report in the Appendix form a Derby University Transport manager that tried
several different modes of transport to get to work including the Segway. It is interesting to
note that the Segway – while not having the highest top speed by any stretch was the fastest
due to its flexibility.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/articles/2006/11/03/weblog_travel_modes_james_brow
n_segway_feature.shtml
23
Cork City
Circle Radii are 1.5km, 2.5km and 5km
Commute time from outer circle to
Patrick St – approximately 20 minutes
Limerick City
Circle Radii are 1.5km, 2.5km and 5km
Commute time from outer circle to
Henry St – approximately 20 minutes
Waterford City
Circle Radii are 1.5km, 2.5km and 5km
Commute time from outer circle to
Patrick St – approximately 20 minutes
Galway City
Circle Radii are 1.5km, 2.5km and 5km
Commute time from outer circle to
Eyre Square – approximately 20 minutes
How many of the trips made daily in or around any of these cities could be made just as
easily on a Segway? The savings in time, congestion, parking and quality of life could be
dramatic.
Currently we all get up in the morning, get into our cars, sit there listening to the radio, get
stressed as we travel nowhere. People are isolated and don’t communicate, the social
network is much poorer than it was 20/30 years ago. Society has become impersonal.
There is another social benefit to using a Segway that has not been discussed anywhere in
this document and that is the public reaction. People are curious, people ask questions and
interact. As a Segway user, you interact with pedestrians and cyclists. Using a Segway is
actually a lot of fun and this highly significant point is always neglected as a motivational
factor when encouraging change.
24
First and Last mile issues – future possibilities?
The first and Last mile still remain the stumbling block of commuting in many urban areas –
how to bridge that gap between the home / place of work and the public transport network.
By this stage it is easy to see how the Segway can help in filling this gap as a personal users
own choice but what other possibilities are available or possible.
Netherlands
The Dutch Railways are studying the possibilities of integrating the Segway into their bicycle
model as a complimentary / alternative option. The concept involves an individual being a
registered user having a membership card for the scheme. The user would take the train to
their destinations, disembark and follow the signs to the Segway pickup point. Here they
would collect the Segway and complete their journey on the Segway, returning it to the
pickup location when returning home.
France
In France, the concept of a Station Oxygène is a possibility, the theory being that users could
go to these “stations” and hire zero emissions transport for their travel around town in a
manner similar to the JC Decaux bicycle scheme that is planned for Dublin
25
General Motors
General Motors have taken this concept to a new level with the unveiling of the Flextreme
concept car at the Frankfurt Motor show in September 2007. This concept vehicle is a diesel
serial hybrid, with an emission level of 40 g/km CO2. Incorporated into the design of this car
are two Segways that load under the boot, dock and are charged while the car is being
driven.
The design considerations around this concept involve the car being driven to the outskirts of
the city, parked and the remainder of the journey being completed on the Segway. If we
reconsider the maps a few pages back of our cities in Ireland and the distances that were
highlighted it is not inconceivable that this concept could have real merit.
Further details of the Flextreme may be found here
http://www.gmeurope.info/social_media_newsroom/archives/245-Dynamic,-Versatile-E-FlexConcept-Opel-Flextreme-Emits-less-than-40-gkm-CO2.html
26
The Commercial uses of the Segway PT
As with all new innovative technologies some of the first to adopt can be the commercial
segments. Primary reasons for this tend to reflect costs, competitive gains and efficiency.
Thus the commercial market and in particular the security sector has grown dramatically
around the world for Segway over the past three years.
Presently there are more than 650 Police departments and security firms are using the
Segway. Many of these are State bodies and City police. The units have been employed in
daily policing duties to improve visibility and increase public interactions.
Security and Police departments have found that the Segway increases patrol efficiency, has
low implementation and operating costs and improves the publics perception of the level of
policing / security in a particular environment.
Presently in Ireland the civil defence has an i2 unit that is equipped as a first response
medical unit and is typically employed at certain festivals and events depending on the area
or region.
G4S (Group 4 Securicor) have 10 units in operation around the country, both North and
South, primary applications are security patrols and medical response applications.
Below are some comments from individuals in the industry.
Liam Wade, Group 4 Securicor General Manager, Cork:
“The Leansteer technology used in the Segway is user friendly and staff will be
able to patrol the centre more quickly and effectively than they could on foot ,
both indoors and out”
Siegfried Obermeier, Operation Superintendent, Munich Airport
“It not only makes my job easier, but it’s also fun. All six of my colleagues using
the Segway PTs would say the same. It contributes to our overall job satisfaction,
as we are less exhausted at the end of a shift. Thirty kilometres on your feet or on
a Segway PT — it makes quite a difference!”
Mark Linse, Deputy Chief Paramedic, Chicago Fire Department, EMS Division
“Stories trickle back to me from the ALS Segway Team and I know of occasions
when they have been first on the scene and have been instrumental in saving
lives. We’re very proud of them.”
Frederick Gilger, Chief Security Officer of Ferrari’s Maranello facility
“We have a guard who has been working here for 35 years…. During his shift we
had a breach in the physical security on the Formula One track and he as able to
stop three intruders by himself because he was on the Segway PT.”
Some case studies have been along with metrics data have been added in the appendix for
further reading.
27
A Carbon Neutral City – Masdar in UAE
(Artists rendering of Masdar)
A model of the future metropolis was unveiled this week at the World Future Energy Summit
where the entire city's electricity needs will be met by numerous renewable energy
technologies, mainly solar power but also wind energy.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and Masdar, the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company,
are working together to make Masdar City the world's greenest city, planned to be fully
functional by 2015.
The six-square-kilometre city will be close to the Abu Dhabi International Airport and to the
south of Abu Dhabi.
Wind turbines will be placed at the south of the site and despite height restrictions because
of the airport, the projected power output will be enough to contribute power to cover all
lighting requirements of the development.
Photovoltaic panels will produce electricity while cooling will be provided by concentrated
solar power. Plans include a solar-powered desalination plant.
Landscaping within the city and crops grown outside the city will be irrigated with grey water
and treated waste water produced by the city's water treatment plant.
The zero-waste aspect of the city includes waste reduction measures, re-use of waste,
recycling and composting. Fair trade and organic items will be sold in retail outlets. All the
objectives Masdar City has to meet have been outlined by WWF's One Planet Living
programme based on 10 principles of sustainability.
"Masdar City will question conventional patterns of urban development, and set new
benchmarks for sustainability and environment friendly design - the students, faculty and
businesses located in Masdar City will not only be able to witness innovation first-hand, but
they will also participate in its development," said Dr Sultan Al Jaber, chief executive of the
Masdar Initiative.
Infrastructure is the most important point to consider when planning architecture of the
future, said Lord Norman Foster, master planner and architect of Masdar City of Foster and
Partners.
28
Incorporating access and transportation goes hand in hand with sustainable development, he
told Gulf News. "We've been working on this for 40 years for individual buildings. The
solutions in achieving sustainable development lie in looking beyond the building and looking
at the whole," he said.
Different lifestyle
Living in Masdar City will take some adjustment for residents but according to surveys and
focus groups, people are keen to set up home in the carbon-free environment and recycle
their waste, said Ziad Tassabehji, director of innovation and investment unit.
"Not everyone will want to live there but the younger generations will be very interested. This
is the future," said Tassabehji. "It will take some adjustment because people will be expected
to walk to shops and restaurants. They can use segways to get around but we have planned
a cool environment even during the summer," he said.
Alleys between buildings should create convection and circulate wind to keep residents cool.
Naturally shaded areas will also add to a more temperate environment. "People will have to
sort their garbage, the lights will come off when they leave the room and the air conditioning
will switch off when they go on holiday. It will be a whole different lifestyle," said Tassabehji.
The city will provide homes as well as offices, schools and even embassies have requested to
be situated there, he added. The population is expected to be around 90,000 with 40,000
residents and 50,000 commuting. Masdar city will be walled, and land outside the perimeter
will be used to produce renewable energy for use within the city.
Solar-powered
Manufacturers of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels are going head-to-head to win the Masdar
City contract that will see the community's main electricity needs provided by solar power.
Over the next 18 months 25 solar power systems are being tested against the harsh Middle
Eastern weather conditions and which ever systems gives the best performance will be
selected to meet the demand of the developers.
Power generated from the testing systems is currently being fed into the national grid for the
first time in the UAE. Sameer Abu Zaid, project manager, said he does not believe there will
be any limitations for residents using solar-powered appliances.
The site houses 26 one-kilowatt PV modules worth approximately $1 million (about Dh3.67
million) mounted on aluminium structures which are capable of powering three houses.
The entire Masdar development will function on between 120 and 180 megawatts from
panels on rooftops. Masdar's 'PV Competition' will monitor how different technologies endure
the effects of heat, humidity and sand.
The systems will be ranked for performance, durability and cost efficiency. Overall energy for
Masdar will be produced from photovoltaic, concentrated solar power and wind. "The fact
that so many companies are taking part is another global endorsement of our work in Abu
Dhabi and a clear vote of confidence in the potential of solar energy," said Dr Sultan Al Jaber,
chief executive of Masdar.
29
Vehicles barred
The city will achieve zero-carbon status by banning all vehicles from entering. After parking
your car in one of the car parks located at the entrances of the city you will then be able to
get around thanks to the underground personal rapid transport (PRT) system - an
autonomous tram-like contraption with stops every 100 metres.
By selecting their destination, passengers will then glide their way home or to work. The PRT
vehicles will be powered by photovoltaic installations. Shaded walkways and narrow streets
will encourage walking in a pedestrian friendly environment.
The route will be located under street level, leaving pedestrians free to roam without any
interruptions from traffic. The city will be linked to principle transport infrastructure and
surrounding communities.
High speed coastal rail links and local light rail links to Abu Dhabi City and Al Raha beach
have been proposed. In general, these podcars are small and typically cater for two to six
passengers travelling along a network of guideways and travel from point to point. They can
be individually hired and shared with others. On street level, pathways will be outlined for
people who choose to get around on a Segway Personal Transporter. Zero-emissions are
given off during operation, allowing you to go indoors with your Segway PT.
Studying alternatives.
The first batch of students is expected to start studying at the Masdar Institute in September
2009. Initially the school will offer full fellowships to 100 students who will be able to choose
to study from five Masters and Doctorate programmes.
"The courses will focus on alternative energies. The number of students is low to keep the
quality up," said Russel Jones, president of Masdar Institute. The institute developed with the
support and cooperation of the Technology and Development Programme (TDP) at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
The Masdar Institute's high research profile will help speed up development, transfer and
adaptation of technology in both the public and private sectors, he said. Research will focus
on advanced energy, advanced materials, engineering systems, water, environment,
sustainable technology, transport and logistics.
"By 2015, we expect to have 800 students and the number of programmes to have doubled,
from five to 10. The programmes are very important in terms of the investment Abu Dhabi
wants to make. It's very practical to have a school like that here," said Jones. Entry
requirements will be similar to those for MIT and all courses will be taught in English. "For
better or worse English is the language of technology. Technical programmes in universities
here are taught in English," he added.
Towards zero-carbon, zero-waste
•
•
•
•
•
40,000 residents will live there
80 per cent less consumption of energy
50 per cent less water usage
6 square kilometres is the size of Masdar City
1 per cent of waste only will go to landfill
Ready by 2015
Article from Gulf News http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/environment/10184552.html
30
APPENDIX
Letter of recommendation from EU Parliament
Segway PT i2 Specification sheet
Segway PT Status around the World
CSO, Volume 12 Press Release
DTO Road Use Extract
Increased Car numbers
Decreased Cyclists
Quality Bus Corridor Figures
Environmental Protection Agency Summary 2006
DTO Cycle Policy extract
US Study on Emerging Road users – Segway extract
BBC – Commute to work test comparison
Commercial Case study documentation and articles
Wikipedia Article on Masdar
31
i2 Specifications
Minimalist design, multitude of uses.
i2
The perfect synthesis of form, function and fun, the Segway® i2 lets you glide through your daily
commute or zip from errand to errand without worrying about parking. The i2 can take you 24
miles/38 km or up to 480 city blocks on a single charge*, powering itself smoothly up or down
stairs and curbs, and keeping you in control as it handles steep grades. Need to use more than
one form of transportation? The versatile i2 can be easily stowed in the trunk of a car or carried
onto many modes of public transit with permission. It’s only fair to warn you, though: life on
an i2 is highly addictive. Once you’ve experienced it, you’ll find yourself constantly looking for
opportunities to sail along the sidewalks.
InfoKey Controller
Handlebar
LeanSteer Frame Height Adjust
Balance
Indicator
Lights
Charge
Indicator
Lights
Charge
Port
To learnIreland
more
Segway
information
or to
Maxem
Technologies
find
Unita local
D2,
Authorized
Southern
Link
Segway
BusinessDealer,
Park,
please
visit
Naas,
Co. Kildare.
www.segway.com
or call
www.segway.ie
866.4SEGWAY
+353
45 889 529
Non-marking Tires
* 24 miles/38 km is the maximum range for the i2 with lithium-ion
batteries. Actual range depends on terrain, payload, and riding style.
Refer to and follow all instructions in the User Materials.
Weight
Tires
105 lbs. 47.7 kg
19"
48 cm
A V A I L A B L E I N : Gloss White
www.segway.com
®
Footprint
Max Speed
Range
25" x 25" 63 cm x 63 cm
12.5 mph 20 kph
Up to 24 mi
Up to 38 km
Anodized Black
Segway and the Segway ‘flyguy’ logo are registered trademarks of Segway Inc. (“Segway”). Other marks including InfoKey and LeanSteer, are trademarks or common law marks of Segway. Segway reserves all rights in its trademarks.
Trademarks not owned by Segway are the property of their respective holders as designated. Copyright © 2006. Segway Inc. All rights reserved.
Segway Briefing Paper
Global Distribution Network
• 250 Segway Authorized retail points in 61 countries; more than 100 Segway Authorized
Dealers in the U.S.
• 38 global Segway Authorized Distributors
• More than 00 Segway PT guided tours operate around the world
Business Development
• Since the Segway PT first went on sale in late 2002, the company’s average annual
growth rate has exceeded 50 percent and the company has sold tens of thousands of
units.
• In 2004 Segway focused on creating a global distribution network and had doubled its
international presence by 2005. Now more than 38 distributors exist worldwide.
• Approximately 60 percent of Segway’s sales volume is made up of individual consumers,
and commercial customers account for the remaining 40 percent.
International Segway PT Regulations
In most countries where the Segway PT has been addressed by regulators, it is allowed to
operate in the same spaces as pedestrians and/or bicycles.
•
Europe – The European Commission has exempted the Segway PT from its vehicle
legislation releasing it from regulation as a road vehicle (ref. letter of 12 July 2002). Many
European countries already allow access for the Segway PT, while others are evaluating
and considering where the Segway PT can be used.
•
European Parliament. In a letter the Chairman of the Transport Committee of the
European Parliament invites all Member States to authorize explicitly and as soon as
possible the use of the Segway HT (ref letter of 27 May 2003).
-
-
-
-
Austria – approved to operate in bicycle lanes and pedestrian areas where bicycles
are allowed (ref. letter of 29 June 2004)
Belgium – allowed to operate under new legislation (15 March 2007) on cycle lanes
(18 kmh) and pedestrian areas/pavements (walking speed). Classified as a ‘moving
device’ and exempted from vehicle requirement. (Ref. Parliament Debate of 06-030226).
Czech Republic - allowed to operate at walking speed in pedestrian areas (ref . letter
of 21 June 2004)
France – approved to operate on pedestrian ways up to 6 km/h during experimental
phase (ref. letter of 8 Jan 2003)
Germany – The Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce in the
German federal state of Saarland have carried out the first study of Segway PTs in
Germany. The study resulted in recommendations to classify the Segway PT as a
new device called “electronic assisted mobility device” and allow it to operate on bike
paths with no speed limitation and in foot traffic areas at walking pace. Decision was
finalized by Federal authorities that Segway PTs are going to be approved. Text
expected to be published shortly (ref. Segway in public space, KU 2006).
Hungary – informal opinion of Ministry suggests use in pedestrian areas and cycle
lanes (ref. letter of 3 April 2002)
Italy – approved to operate on pedestrian ways up to 6 km/h and on bicycle lanes up
to 20 km/h during experimental phase (ref. letter of 22 December 2003 – expect full
integration in traffic code in 2007)
Greece – Segway PT are exempted from type approval legislation (ref letter of
27/7/2005)
Portugal – Segway PT are exempted from type approval legislation (ref. letter of 25
June 2006)
Segway Around the World /Pg. 2
Spain: currently allowed in pedestrian areas/sidewalks at walking speed (full
integration in traffic law already announced by Ministry of Home Affairs – ref. letter
31 October 2006)
- UK - Segway PTs are currently classified as mopeds, therefore use on public roads
is conditioned to moped type approval
- NL: Segway PTs will be permitted to operate on Cycle lanes and roads from July 1
2008 under new legislation.
- Switzerland – Following successful performance tests, type approval legislation has
been amended to allow Segway PTs to circulate on public space.
Middle East – The Israeli Ministry of Transportation conducted a series of evaluations
and approved the Segway PT to operate in public space
-
•
•
United States – The Federal government defines the Segway PT as a consumer product
defined within the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA, U.S.C. 15). At the state level, 44
states and the District of Columbia allow it to operate in the same spaces as pedestrians
and/or bicycles. Legally the Segway PT is defined as an EPAMD (Electric Personal
Assistive Mobility Device) which is a “self-balancing, nontandem, two-wheeled device that
can turn in place, transports only one person, with an electric propulsion system
averaging less than one horsepower, and travels less than 12.5 miles per hour.”
•
Canada - Transport Canada has excluded the Segway PT from its Motor Vehicle Safety
Act, paving the way for efforts to define the Segway PT in Canadian provinces beginning
in 2006. Regulatory considerations are currently underway in several Provinces. The
Centre for Electric Vehicle Experimentation in Quebec (CEVEQ, www.ceveq.qc.ca)
completed a two-phase study in April 2006. After two years of evaluation, CEVEQ
recommended that Segway PTs should be allowed on urban pedestrian areas and that
such use would have little impact on user safety and still less on the safety of
pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and other walkway users.
•
South Africa - Regulatory discussions have been initiated and are ongoing
•
South America - Regulatory discussions have been initiated in Argentina, Brazil and
Mexico. Segway PTs are approved to operate on sidewalks in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Segway PT Speed Limiter: a unique safety feature
One of the most important safety features of Segway PT is its speed limiter. Segway PTs are
manufactured to operate at a maximum speed of 20 km/h. The machine monitors the speed
of the wheels 100 times a second. Inter alia, the speed limiter is triggered automatically
whenever the machine is about to reach the top speed allowed by the key-mode in use
(normal 17 km/h or slow 6km/h). In no instance will the machine go faster than 20 km/h. The
software code (64bit encrypted) is also hardware specific and will not allow the machine to
exceed the programmed limit. Five years after launch we are unaware of anybody trying to
increase its speed. The complexity and expense also make this a futile exercise. Moreover,
Segway is not a machine people seek speed from.
Why Speed Limiter is important
Regulators around the globe have made use of this feature as an extra layer of safety for use
of Segway PT in pedestrian areas and on pavements. It is no coincidence that in Spain, Italy
and France the machine is allowed to be operated with confidence in pedestrian areas and
pavements only at pedestrian speed.
What solution for your country
Segway PT users typically make use of cycle lanes when they are available. They move
through pedestrian areas and pavements only when cycle lanes are not available. Observing
a speed limit on pedestrian areas/pavements is an acceptable practice for Segway PT users
and an extra layer of protection for pedestrians. This conclusion was also reached by various
independent studies conducted in Europe and North America.
Common regulatory conditions are: minimum age (14-16), insurance and bicycle-like lights
and bell alert. Helmet use tends to be recommended rather than imposed.
2006 Census of Population – Volume 12 – Travel to Work, School and College
Large increase in number of car users
The number of persons driving to work by car, lorry or van increased by over 225,000 between 2002 and 2006, an increase
of 22%, according to a new report from the Central Statistics Office.
This information is contained in Census 2006 Volume 12 – Travel to Work, School and College, which gives further
detailed results of the census conducted on 23 April 2006. The report gives the final population figures classified by means
of travel to work, school and college, time of leaving home, time taken, distance travelled and the number of cars per
household (see Editor’s note).
Of the 1.9 million workers in the State in April 2006, almost 1.1m (57%) drove a car to work – up from 55% in 2002. When
combined with workers who travelled to work as car passengers or as van/lorry drivers seven out of ten of workers were
private vehicle users in 2006.
Bus share falls
While the overall number of bus users increased slightly, the share of public transport by bus fell from 6.7% in 2002 to 6.1%
in 2006. The number of persons commuting to work by rail increased by over 66% compared with 2002 reflecting the
introduction of the LUAS.
Train usage by workers was highest in Dublin’s north county area with Donabate (26%), Skerries (24%), Portmarnock and
Malahide (both 20%) most prominent.
More young children being driven to school
Of the 247,000 primary school children who were driven to school in 2006 (55% of the total) 44,000 were driven 1 kilometre
or less. A further 105,000 were driven 4 kilometres or less.
Among secondary school students there was a marked difference in transport use between urban and rural dwellers with
over half of children in rural areas taking the bus compared with one in five in urban areas. In all, 45% were driven 4
kilometres or less to school, representing 43,000 car journeys.
Urban workers take longer to cover shorter distances to work
Workers travelled on average 15.8 km from their homes to their workplaces in 2006, little change on 2002. Rural based
workers travelled an average of 20.9 km compared with 12.8 km for workers living in urban areas.
More /...
The average journey time to work was 27.5 minutes in April 2006, slightly up from 26.8 minutes in April 2002. Even though
urban workers travelled shorter distances to their workplaces than workers living in rural areas, traffic congestion meant
that they spent longer periods commuting (27.9 minutes compared with 26.8 minutes for rural workers).
Earlier start for male workers
Almost 285,000 workers left home before 7 am to get to work in 2006, with 113,000 leaving before 6.30 am. Three out of
four of these early commuters were men. Women dominate the later time slots with 40% departing between 8 and 9 am,
the time slot which accounts for 65% of departing primary schoolchildren and seven out of ten secondary students.
Increased car ownership
Close on 1.2 million households had at least one car each in 2006 – an increase of 170,000 compared with 2002. Meath
(90%), Cork County (88%), Waterford County and Kildare (both 87%) had the highest proportions of households with at
least one car. Four out of ten households in Dublin City had no car in 2006.
Editor’s note
The publication Census 2006 - Principal Socio-economic Results, released on 28 June 2007, contains a summary at State
level of data from Volumes 5 - 7, 9 - 10 and 13 of the detailed census reports. The publication released today, Volume 12,
provides figures for travel to work, school and college at a more detailed geographical level.
All published tables from Census 2006 are being made available on the CSO web site (www.cso.ie).
For copies of the publication contact:
Central Statistics Office, Information Section, Skehard Road, Cork. 021- 4535011
or
Government Publications Sales Office, Sun Alliance House, Molesworth Street, Dublin 2.
Price: €15 [Copies can also be downloaded from the CSO website (see below)].
For further information contact:
Central Statistics Office, Swords Business Campus, Balheary Road, Swords, Co. Dublin.
Census Enquiries:
Fax:
E-mail:
Internet:
(01) 895 1460/61/63/66
(01) 895 1399
[email protected]
www.cso.ie
Central Statistics Office
15 November 2007
– ENDS –
3.
General Traffic Indicators
G1
(A):
Percentage of trips to work by walk, cycle, bus and car
DTO organised a Greater Dublin Area Household Travel Survey in March – May
2006. The survey recorded the travel behaviour of members from a representative
sample of households in the GDA over a 7-day period.
Figure 3.1: Mode share of work Trips in the Dublin Region, March-July, 2006
Other
Modes
Other PT
4%
5%
Cycle
3%
Other
Mixed
Other PTModes Modes
1%
5%
Cycle 3%
Mixed
Modes
5%
4%
Bus
15%
Bus
18%
Car
56%
Car
54%
Walk
16%
Walk
11%
Dublin Region June/July 1450
Dublin Region March-May 2752
Car journeys made up 54% of all work trips in the Dublin region, between March and
May. This percentage is little changed in the June-July period, at 56%.
Figure 3.2: Mode share of work Trips in the Mid East Region, March-July, 2006
Other PT
1%
Cycle
1%
Other
Modes
Bus 5%
2%
Mixed
Modes
2%
Walk
12%
Other PT
0%
Bus
2%
Walk
19%
Other
Modes
5%
Mixed
Modes
6%
Car
68%
Car
77%
Mid East Region June-July 287
Mid East Region March-May 681
Journeys by car made up a greater percentage of work trips in the Mid East, at 77%
between March and May. This figure fell to 68% in the June-July period. Bus trips in
the Mid East are substantially lower than those in the Dublin region, at just 2%.
7
Increased car numbers
Source - Irish Bulletin of Vehicle And Driver Statistics 2005
The total number of licensed vehicles at 31st December 2005 was 2,138,700.
Cycling use trends in Dublin and other Irish cities
Cycle numbers to work and to school fell in every major city in the state between 1996 and
2002.
1996
Dublin
County
2002
City
and
Reduction
%
reduction
22,250
19,311
2,939
13%
GDA
25,567
21,326
4,241
17%
Cork City
1,436
963
473
33%
Limerick City
1,275
806
469
37%
Galway City
1,266
919
347
27%
Waterford City
688
325
363
53%
Source: Census 2002, Road User Monitoring Report 2004
Table A2: Cycling to Work in Irish Cities 1996 and 2002
1996
Dublin
County
2002
City
%
reduction
16,772
10,848
5,924
35%
20,970
12,562
8,408
40%
Cork City
2,623
918
1,705
65%
Limerick City
1,271
680
591
46%
Galway City
2,113
661
1,452
69%
Waterford City
624
173
451
72%
GDA
and
Reduction
Source: Census 2002, Road User Monitoring Report 2004
Table 5 Performance Indicators 2004/2005/2006
29
EPA Headquarters
PO Box 3000
Johnstown Castle Estate
County Wexford, Ireland
T +353 53 9160600
LoCall 1890 33 55 99
www.epa.ie
IRELAND’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN 2006
Summary
The EPA has submitted the latest estimates of greenhouse gases up to 2006 to the European
Commission in accordance with reporting obligations for Member States. Following normal
practice, the estimates include revision as appropriate of previously published estimates,
taking account of inter alia, revised energy balance data recently published by Sustainable
Energy Ireland (SEI) and peer review recommendations following in-depth review of
Ireland’s 2006 submissions to the UNFCCC secretariat. This briefing note summarises the
status of GHG emissions.
Key features of the 2006 estimates:
Overall
•
Total GHG emissions in 2006 were 69.77 million tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent
(Mt CO2eq), which is 0.8 percent lower than the level of emissions in 2005.
Transport
•
Transport continues to be the dominant growth sector with emissions at 682,000
tonnes higher in 2006 than in 2005. This represents a 5.2 percent increase on 2005
levels and 165 percent increase on the 1990 transport emissions.
•
Road transport accounts for 97 percent of the transport sector emissions.
•
The increase in the GHG emissions from the transport sector reflects sustained
increases in fuel consumption with petrol usage up 3.4 percent and diesel
consumption up 7.9 percent from the previous year.
Energy
•
There was a decrease of 746,600 tonnes CO2eq for energy industries continuing the
fluctuating trend in this sector. Emissions were down 4.6 percent on 2005 and 31.6
percent higher than in 1990.
•
Some reduction in the use of the Moneypoint station due to improvements taking
place at the plant largely account for the decrease in emissions in energy in 2006.
Agriculture
•
The emissions from Agriculture decreased by 1.4 percent in 2006, continuing the
downward trend from the 1998 peak. Lower sheep and cattle numbers coupled with
reduced use of fertiliser resulted in the lower emissions from the agriculture sector.
Residential
•
Emissions in 2006 show little change from the 2005 level.
Kyoto Protocol
•
Ireland’s target in relation to the Kyoto Protocol is to limit emissions to 13 percent
above the baseline estimate in the period 2008-2012. Based on the latest inventory
figures, Ireland’s emissions in 2006 were 25.5 percent higher than the baseline
estimate that underlies Ireland’s allowable emissions for the period 2008-2012, as
agreed in the peer review of Ireland’s 2006 submission to the UNFCCC.
Dublin Transportation Office
DTO Cycling Policy 2006
in doing business, visiting a city as a
tourist, enjoying the city from a leisure
perspective or simply going about their
daily business. Many leading European
cities and city regions have demonstrated
that developing cycling as a means of
travel can result in lower congestion, more
efficient public and private transport
movements, a cleaner environment and a
better overall quality of life.
DTO Cycling Policy
1
INTRODUCTION
The promotion and facilitation of cycling as
a mode of transport in the GDA is a key
aspect of DTO policy as set out in A
Platform for Change. Cycling has
considerable potential to improve the
quality of life of people who live, work and
study in the GDA, and to improve the
accessibility of the city region.
The DTO Strategy as set out in A Platform
for Change stated that the completion of
the strategic cycle network and links to
public transport remain the principal
objectives for the cycling mode. It stated
that the overall objective of the DTO
Strategy in relation to cycling was to
The creation of a cycle friendly
environment has a positive effect on
people’s experiences of the area, whether
DTO Cycling Policy
This Cycle Policy is a statement of intent by the Dublin Local Authorities, the DTO and
other members of the DTO Steering Committee as follows:
To enhance the cycling environment and facilitate cycling in the GDA by a variety of
means, including
x
Creating a continuous cycle friendly environment on cycle routes, as required, by
o
Reducing traffic volumes (in particular heavy vehicles) and slower traffic
o
Improved and additional cycle infrastructure and priority and good quality
road surfaces
o
Appropriate levels of enforcement
x
Provision of sufficient and appropriately designed cycle parking facilities
x
Cycle friendly planning and design of new developments
To promote cycling in the GDA through a variety of means including
x
Training and other education measures, targeted in particular at those of school
going age
x
Promoting cycling as a healthy activity
x
Marketing of cycling as a sensible choice, focussed on areas where good potential
for cycling is identified, and where good quality cycle facilities exist
To further develop the GDA cycling strategy by
x
Establishing a GDA Cycle Working Group, consisting of local authorities and other
relevant implementing/funding agencies
x
Forming partnerships with other stakeholders, e.g. through the establishment of a
Cycle Forum in each local authority area.
x
Further research and analysis of cycling behaviour and attitudes, focussing on
cycling for non-work or school purposes, and reasons for not cycling
x
Setting realistic targets for growth in cycle use
x
Preparing cycle programmes to support policy objectives
x
Preparing a monitoring strategy to enable comparison of outcomes with targets set
and to inform future Cycle Policy reviews and programmes
Key Point 1:
Proposed Cycling Policy
2
Dublin Transportation Office
DTO Cycling Policy 2006
increase the proportion of short trips (up to
6km) made by bicycle to 30% by 2016.
Trips to places of education and
commuting trips of up to 10km in length
were to be particularly targeted as suitable
for cycling.
Reduce congestion by shifting short
trips (the majority of trips in cities) out
of cars. This will also make cities more
accessible for public transport, walking,
essential car travel, emergency
services, and deliveries.
Since A Platform for Change was
published, significant progress has been
made in the provision of infrastructure for
cycling. However, the benefits of these
improvements to date have been confined
to slowing the rate of decline in cycling
numbers compared to other Irish cities. If
this decline is to be reversed, a more
comprehensive cycling policy is required.
It is the purpose of this document to
outline such a policy.
Save lives by creating safer conditions
for bicyclists and, as a direct
consequence, improve the safety of all
other road users. Research shows that
increasing the number of cyclists on
the street improves bicycle safety.
Increase opportunities for residents of
all ages to participate socially and
economically in the community,
regardless of income or ability. Greater
choice of travel modes also increases
independence, especially among
seniors and children.
An increase in cycling in the GDA will have
significant benefits for all parties involved
in transport and travel in the region, from
transport providers and local authorities to
cyclists themselves and all other road
users
2
Boost the economy by creating a
community that is an attractive
destination for new residents, tourists
and businesses.
Enhance recreational opportunities,
especially for children, and further
contribute to the quality of life in the
community.
BENEFITS OF A GDA
CYCLING POLICY
An agreed GDA cycling policy is an
essential first step towards the
development of a wider cycling strategy for
the Greater Dublin Area that incorporates
the cycling policy as well as associated
targets and cycling programmes.
Save city funds by increasing the
efficient use of public space, reducing
the need for costly new road
infrastructure, preventing crashes,
improving the health of the community,
and increasing the use of public
transport.
The policy will provide a transparent
approach to cycling in the GDA for the
public, planning and transport bodies and
other partners able to contribute to the
regions cycling objectives. It will be
important for cycling policies to integrate
with other policies in the transport and
planning sector and elsewhere.
Enhance public safety and security by
increasing the number of "eyes on the
street" and providing more options for
movement in the event of emergencies,
natural disasters, and major public
events.
Improve the health and well being of
the population by promoting routine
physical activity.
The benefits of a successful cycle policy,
and follow on programmes are well
summarised in the Velo-Mondial Charter
Plan for Cycle Friendly Communities 1 .
In the Dublin context, increased bicycle
use could also:
Increased cycle use can:
Increase numbers using public
transport by extending the catchment
beyond the walking catchment to a
wider population
Improve the environment by reducing
the impact on residents of pollution and
noise, limiting greenhouse gases, and
improving the quality of public spaces.
Improve accessibility, particularly at a
local level
Support opportunities for intensification
of land use at appropriate locations.
1
Velo-mondial Charter for Cycle Friendly
Communities
http://www.velomondial.net/PDFFiles/ActionPla
n.pdf . Dublin City Council is a signatory of this
Charter
Provide support, through improved
accessibility, for local businesses and
services.
3
Recommendation for admission
The German road traffic regulations define requirements and prerequisites for devices,
their assigned traffic areas and their road behaviour in public transport according to type
of device and not according to application.
All attempts to define the Segway within existing categories will therefore lead to the
fact, that requirements for the device are to be met, which technically are difficult to
fulfil or which are unreasonable with respect to the Segway’s use. It could happen that
the Segway will be classified to a traffic area in which it does not fit properly and in
which the conflict - and danger potential is very high for the rider as well as for other
road users. In some cases the Segway cannot use its specific advantages.
To fulfil all these requirements and to reflect the results of the pilot study we
recommend integrating the Segway as a »electric assistive mobility device«, as
motorized vehicle of special type, into the Straßenverkehrs-Zulassungsordnung StVZO
(the road traffic licensing regulations).
The use of the Segway should be allowed on cycle lanes, in traffic-calmed areas, in
pedestrian zones, in the last two with a limitation to walking speed. Like for
motorassisted bicycles a compulsory insurance seems advisable, an adjustment of the
regulations for insurance does not seem to be necessary.
Correspondingly the Segways should only be required to carry a small insurance plate.
According to the Fahrerlaubnisverordnung (the driver’s licence regulation) a rider’s
licence is not necessary in this case, the training is sufficient because the manufacturer
links the sell of a Segway to obligatory riding tests and as the pilot study has shown that
mainly the riding experience and the riding skills improve the safe handling of the
Segway.
There is a lower risk of accidents and less danger of falls connected with the Segway in
comparison to a bicycle. An analogous regulation of recommending the use of a
protective helmet without the obligation to wear a helmet seems to be sufficient.
The technical equipment of the Segway is not yet sufficient for using it in public spaces.
The Segway should be equipped with a lighting facility as standard, like it is required for
bicycles, as standard it also should have a bell.
According to the results of the pilot study the provided brake technology seems to be
sufficient for the recommended use, the equipment of the device with rear-view mirror
and speedo does not seem absolutely necessary.
Characteristics of Emerging
Road Users and Their Safety
PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-04-103
Research, Development, and Technology
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
OCTOBER 2004
Figure 50. Segway users at the physical
measurements station.
Figure 51. A Segway user on the Paint Branch
Trail in Maryland.
Figure 52. Segway in the turning radius
station.
95
Table 22. Physical dimensions and operational characteristics of Segway users vs.
AASHTO (bicycle) values.
COMMENT
CHARACTERISTIC
SEGWAY
AASHTO
(MIN-MAX
(BICYCLE)
VALUE
VALUES)
Eye height (cm) (N=4)
Length (cm) (N=4)
Width (cm) (N=4)
Acceleration rate from 0
to 12.2 m (m/sec2) (N=4)
Acceleration rate from
12.2 to 24.4m (m/sec2)
(N=4)
Acceleration rate from
24.4 to 36.6 m (m/sec2)
(N=4)
Acceleration rate from
36.6 to 48.8 m (m/sec2)
(N=4)
Time to travel 12.2 m
(sec) (N=4)
Time to travel 24.4 m
(sec) (N=4)
Time to travel 36.6 m
(sec) (N=4)
Time to travel 48.8 m
(sec) (N=4)
Speed (km/h) (N=4)
Perception-reaction time
(sec) (N=5)
Sweep width (m) (N=8)
Three-point turn (cm)
(N=3)
Friction factor, 3.1-m
radius (N=5)
Friction factor, 6.1-m
radius (N=5)
Friction factor, 9.2-m
radius (N=5)
Friction factor, 15.3-m
radius (N=5)
Friction factor, 22.9-m
radius (N=5)
Friction factor, 27.5-m
radius (N=5)
175–204
56
64
0.29–0.36
140
180
120
0.46–0.92
0.49–0.98
0.46–0.92
0.05–0.12
0.46–0.92
0.03–0.95
0.46–0.92
4.1–4.6
5.2
6.6–7.8
9.8
8.7–11.1
11.4
10.9–14.7
12.8
14–18
0.6–2.0
30
1.5
0.9–1.7
1.0
97–102
300
0.27–0.31
0.32
0.17–0.58
0.30
0.11–0.31
0.29
0.09–0.17
0.26
0.05–0.10
0.24
0.04–0.10
0.23
1 cm = 0.39 inches
1 m = 3.28 ft
1 km = 0.621 mi
96
AASHTO value calculated
with acc. rate of 1.5 ft/sec2
AASHTO value calculated
with acc. rate of 1.5 ft/sec2
AASHTO value calculated
with acc. rate of 1.5 ft/sec2
AASHTO value calculated
with acc. rate of 1.5 ft/sec2
Research cited in AASHTO
Green Book
AASHTO assumed bicycle
operating space
AASHTO value is for twodirectional trail
Many characteristics of the Segway are comparable to those of other emerging trail devices.
Segways stand out with regard to a few characteristics, however. The following list gives 85th
percentile values.
1.
Segway users had higher eye heights (179 cm (71 inches)) than other user types. This is
not surprising: Users are standing on the Segway itself while traveling. Inline skaters had
the second highest eye height, 164 cm (65 inches) (table 7).
2.
All four observed Segways had a length of 56 cm (22 inches). Compared to other
devices, only inline skates had a shorter length (while at rest) (table 8).
3.
All four observed Segways had a width of 64 cm (25 inches). This width is comparable
to other devices (table 9).
4.
The highest acceleration rates for Segways were measured between 12.2 and 24.4 m (40
and 80 ft); the value of 0.94 m/sec2 (3.09 ft/sec2) was at the high end of the 0.5 to 1.0
m/sec2 (1.5 to 3 ft/sec2) that AASHTO uses to calculate the minimum green time for
bicyclists. For distances between 0 and 12.2 m (0 and 40 ft), and between 24.4 and 48.8
m (80 and 160 ft), Segways accelerated more slowly than the AASHTO values (table 10).
5.
Segway users were most comparable to inline skaters and bicyclists in terms of the time
required to travel distances of 12.2, 24.4 m, 36.6 m, and 48.8 m (40 ft, 80 ft, 120 ft, and
160 ft). They took roughly half the time of manual wheelchair users, but up to 43 percent
more time than recumbent bicyclists (table 11).
6.
The observed speed of 17 km/h (10 mi/h) was somewhat faster than kick scooters (15
km/h (9 mi/h)) and somewhat slower than golf carts (19 km/h (12 mi/h). It is also about
half that of the 30 km/h (20 mi/h) design speed recommended by AASHTO (table 12).
7.
The observed perception-reaction time was 1.5 seconds. This value is within 0.1 sec of
the perception-reaction times for manual wheelchair users and inline skaters (table 14).
8.
The Segway’s braking distance of 3.1 m (10 ft) was the second shortest among devices;
only manual wheelchairs had a shorter braking distance (1.7 m (6 ft)). It was also about
half that of bicycles and hand cycles (table 15).
97
9.
Segways were observed to decelerate faster (4.7 m/sec2 (16 ft/sec2)) than other user types.
This is perhaps surprising, considering that Segways are not equipped with brakes; to
stop the device, the user straightens up from the leaning position. Recumbent bicycles
had the second fastest deceleration rate, 4.0 m/sec2 (13 ft/sec2) (table 16).
10.
Sweep width (1.1 m (3.5 ft)) was most comparable to recumbent bicycles (1.1 m (3.5 ft))
and adult tricycles (1.0 m (3.4 ft)). It is less than half of AASHTO’s recommended width
of 3 m (10 ft) for a two-way shared use path, which means that a 3-m (10-ft path) is wide
enough for two Segway users (or most other users) to pass each other in opposing
directions (table 17).
11.
The Segway required the least space to make a three-point turn (100 cm (39 inches)).
The second narrowest was manual wheelchairs (146 cm (58 in)) (table 18).
12.
For 6.1-m (20-ft) turning radii, Segways had the highest calculated tolerance for lateral
acceleration (friction factor = 0.58), compared to other devices. This friction factor was
also nearly double that recommended by AASHTO. For other turning radii, the friction
factors for Segways were lower than those for bicycles and recumbent bicycles. The
lowest friction factor (0.09) was associated with a 27.5-m (90-ft) turning radius, a value
less than half of that recommended by AASHTO (table 19).
Time will tell whether the Segway catches on and becomes a common mode in transportation
networks. The data from this study provide information into the performance and
maneuverability of the Segway and how it might function within shared use paths, sidewalks,
and streets.
98
BBC - Derby - Travel - Day Ten: Segway
1 of 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/articles/2006/11/03/weblog_trav...
Home
TV
Radio
Talk
Where I Live
A-Z Index
3 March 2008
Accessibility help
Text only
BBC
Homepage
England
COMMUTER CHALLENGE
You are in: Derby > Travel > Commuter Challenge > Day Ten: Segway
Day Ten: Segway
»Derby
Saving Planet
Earth
How We Built
Britain
A personal transporter
However, James's efforts aren't be simply along the lines of 'bus,
bike and car' - oh no... James is trying some more unusual
methods of getting from A to B.
His list includes: cycling, walking, electric car, heelys (trainers
with wheels), segway (a kind of electric scooter) and powerizers
(stilts with springs)!
Radio Derby
Day 10 – Segway
Site Contents
Journey Time 12 minutes – The Fastest!!
Contact Us
Journey Cost – This Segway costs £3,995. The range is 10-20
miles per overnight battery charge depending on riding style!
Like this page?
Send it to a friend!
Commuter Challenge
Travel
James Brown, transport
On this site
manager at the University of
Day One: On Yer Bike!
Derby, says there's more than
Day Two: Hybrid Car
one way of getting to work.
Day Three: Walking
He's trying ten different modes
Day Four: Powerizers
of transport from Chester Green
Day Five: The Bus
Day Six: Electric Bike
to the Kedleston Road campus.
News
Sport
Weather
Travel News
Entertainment
Features
In Pictures
Faith
Discover
Derbys
BBC Bus
SEE ALSO
It was with a tinge of sadness I realised that today would
represent the last day of the commuter challenge! I really have
enjoyed myself in the process of getting to work… but the
Segway would prove the perfect tonic to finish with!
Day Seven: Motor bike
Day Eight: Heelys
Day Nine:Recumbent
cycle
BBC RADIO DERBY
Today's schedule
Listen to the latest news
Contact Us
Bus, train or car, travel
the UK with our
door-to-door planner.
Journey Planner
Powered by Transport
Direct
BBC Travel News
It arrived on Thursday, so I could practice, but after about a
minute, I felt totally confident on it. It was so intuitive, and so
easy to use, and also exceptionally good fun.
It was even more fun to go into the atrium of the University and
ride past people – most people turned to look with interest at
what was going on, some had something to say, and a small
minority ignored it, like they see people going past on Segways
every day! This was going to be a great mode of transport to get
to work on, even if it felt like some totally bizarre space age
dream!
I set out early to work, it was the coldest morning yet on this
challenge.
I couldn't work out whether to use
the pavement or the road, so elected
to use the pavement on main roads
and decided to use the road, in
quieter areas! It was fantastic, a real
buzz, and it was quite amusing to
start off and see people's reactions!
The cold was quite penetrating, and
my eyes were watering very badly, if
I hadn't been laughing so much
people would have thought I was
extremely upset to be on the
Segway.
The journey to work was just so
rapid! Speed ramps had to be taken
carefully, but the rest of the way, it
was like a fast jog (and at times a
James tries it out!
sprint!) There were not many people
about, but those who were all keen to say hello, and it seemed
that the Segway cheered them up. There were no problems, no
obstacles and all short cuts could be taken, as on the bike, it was
just two miles of fun and enjoyment – it was just so
entertaining!!
03/03/2008 13:16
BBC - Derby - Travel - Day Ten: Segway
2 of 2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/articles/2006/11/03/weblog_trav...
It didn't even slow down up hill – slopes were climbed very
efficiently, a real surprise! I looked at my watch after crossing
the A38, and couldn't believe how quickly I had made progress.
When you first use one, it doesn't seem real… it is so radically
different to anything else I've tried in the last 10 days, but such
a fantastic idea. There are no emissions at the point of use and
there is a claimed range of over 20 miles so it is extremely
practical. There is even an 'off-road' version that climbs kerbs
and also one with luggage trays and a golf club holder!
But there are disadvantages, firstly the cost – at £3995, it is not
cheap, especially compared to bikes, but I suppose if it is
compared to, lets say, running a second family car, then it is
good value!
Secondly, they are not really recognised in any legislation, which
means there is a great deal of uncertainty about how you can
use them. I took the view that used sensibly and responsibly
(they could easily be mis-used), it would present no more danger
or problems than a jogger or a bicycle, but to use one long term,
I would feel more comfortable knowing they were officially
approved for use.
I can safely say that the Segway was my favourite mode of
transport over the 10 days…
last updated: 03/11/06
SEE ALSO
Day One: On Yer Bike!
Day Two: Hybrid Car
Day Three: Walking
Day Four: Powerizers
Day Five: The Bus
Day Six: Electric Bike
Day Seven: Motor bike
Day Eight: Heelys
Day Nine:Recumbent cycle
Commuter Challenge
Travel
You are in: Derby > Travel > Commuter Challenge > Day Ten: Segway
HOMEEMAILPRINT
TOP
SITE CONTENTS
BBC Derby website, 56 St Helen's Street, Derby, DE1 3HY
phone:
| e-mail: [email protected]
01332 361111
About the BBC | Help | Terms of Use | Privacy & Cookies Policy
Advertise with us
03/03/2008 13:16
Case Study
Personal Transporters Raise Profile
of Munich Airport Terminal Services
Airport Patrolling
Munich Airport, Germany
Customer
Munich Airport
Market Sector
Transportation /
Terminal Services
The Challenge
• Increase the
productivity and
responsiveness of
senior operations staff
at Munich Airport
Since May 2007, operations superintendents
of Munich Airport’s two terminals have
been turning heads. Elevated above the
travelling masses, they ride Segway® Personal
Transporters (PTs) to give them greater speed
and visibility as they respond to terminal
incidents with less fatigue.
Munich Airport is Germany’s secondlargest airport, and ranks seventh among
Europe’s passenger airports. It consists of
two terminals, each about 1km (.6miles)
long, linked by a 300m (1000ft) hallway.
Each terminal has the capacity to serve
over 20 million passengers per year. At this
scale, sophisticated and smooth-running
terminal services and patrolling are of utmost
importance.
Working in shifts around the clock, 75
operations personnel are responsible for the
operational reliability of the airport terminals.
Patrolling staff manage the passenger flow
at departure and landing, and support the
federal police with security checks, lost
luggage, and other lost and found items.
To learn more
information or to
find a local
Authorized
Segway Dealer,
please visit
www.segway.com
or call
866.4SEGWAY
www.segway.com
Executive
Summary
Shift managers frequently need to get from
the far end of one terminal to the next in a
short period of time to respond to security
incidents. At peak periods, they cover as
much as 30 km (18 miles) in a single shift,
all on foot. Naturally, their response time is
limited to manpower and they become tired
and slower by the end of the day.
Similarly, airport operation’s lost and found
staff frequently have to walk long distances to
collect unclaimed items and deal with related
security breaches. The VIP team, also part of
airport operations, handles flight check-in
for high profile travelers, so they have a need
to get to airline desks very quickly.
At the beginning of 2007, the airport staff
began looking for a transportation solution
to help terminal operations staff be more
“It not only makes
my job easier, but it’s
also fun. All six of my
colleagues using the
Segway PTs would say
the same. It contributes
to our overall job
satisfaction, as we are
less exhausted at the
end of a shift. Thirty
kilometers on your
feet or on a Segway
PT — it makes quite a
difference!”
-Siegfried Obermeier
Operation Superintendent,
Munich Airport
Segway® and the Segway ‘flyguy’ logo are registered trademarks of Segway Inc. (“Segway”). Other marks including InfoKey and LeanSteer, are trademarks or common law marks of Segway.
Segway reserves all rights in its trademarks. Trademarks not owned by Segway are the property of their respective holders as designated. Copyright © 2008. Segway Inc. All rights reserved.
The Solution
• Equip the operations
staff with three
Segway i2 personal
transporters (PTs) —
for the patrolling, VIP,
lost-and-found teams.
Benefits to the
Customer
• Personnel are able
to patrol the airport,
escort VIPs and
respond to incidents
much faster than on
foot.
• Segway PTs are
clean, agile, and
easy to maneuver,
enabling access to all
airport areas, such
as elevators, parking
lots, and private areas.
Segway PT batteries
are fast-charging, and
hold their charge for a
long time.
CONTINUED, Airport Security Munich Airport, Germany
responsive and reduce the amount of
required walking. The team tested the Segway
PT for two weeks, with each shift manager
offering input.
minutes to walk from one terminal to the next,
which when dealing with an incident is a very
long time. Now we are at the right spot within
minutes.”
Operation superintendent Siegfried
Obermeier, a 15-year veteran of the airport,
supervises a patrolling shift at the airport.
“During the trial, we came to the conclusion
that the Segway PT is ideal for us,” he said.
“The Segway PT allows perfect mobility for
our team. It’s agile and flexible and fast —
great for moving quickly from one terminal
to the next. We can even turn in elevators,
drive up ramps, and carry documents and our
walkie-talkies.”
Because Segway PTs recharge quickly and
inexpensively, and the battery range is up
to 38km (24 miles) of travel, they meet the
needs of Munich Airport perfectly. Shift
managers can recharge their Segway PTs in
between shifts and during breaks — in effect,
enabling Segway PT use 24 hours a day.
The team made a case to the controller, and
an initial purchase of three Segway PTs was
approved — one for the patrolling team, one
for the VIP team and one for the lost and
found team. They selected the Segway i2,
which includes a handlebar bag for gear,
reflective security labels, an LED taillight
and cargo frames that double as lift handles.
Additional gear can be attached to two
universal cargo plates with bungee hooks
or nets, and comfort mats that alleviate the
fatigue of standing for long periods.
“We had been planning to purchase electric
scooters from a different manufacturer but,
after we tried the Segway PT, we knew this
was the perfect vehicle — it was made for us,”
Obermeier said. “Before, it took us at least 15
Not only does Obermeier’s team find the
Segway i2 units to be fast, easy to learn and
handle, but they also value being a more
visible security presence at the airport. And
their success is having a ripple effect at
Munich Airport. The technical engineers of
the Airport operations team have already
run trials and ordered two Segway PT’s to
respond even quicker to technical incidents.
An important side-effect has been the
increase in morale for people who are able
to do their jobs more efficiently, and who no
longer have aching feet at the end of their
workday.
“It not only makes my job easier, but it’s also
fun,” Obermeier said. “All six of my colleagues
using the Segway PTs would say the same. It
contributes to our overall job satisfaction, as
we are less exhausted at the end of a shift.
Thirty kilometers on your feet or on a Segway
PT — it makes quite a difference!”
“The Segway PT allows perfect mobility for our
team. It’s agile and flexible and fast — great for
moving quickly from one terminal to the next. We
can even turn in elevators, drive up ramps, and carry
documents and our walkie-talkies.”
-Siegfried Obermeier
Operation Superintendent,
Munich Airport
Segway® and the Segway ‘flyguy’ logo are registered trademarks of Segway Inc. (“Segway”). Other marks including InfoKey and LeanSteer, are trademarks or common law marks of Segway.
Segway reserves all rights in its trademarks. Trademarks not owned by Segway are the property of their respective holders as designated. Copyright © 2008. Segway Inc. All rights reserved.
Case Study
Paramedics with Chicago Fire Department
Enhance Response Times with Segway® PT
FIRE/EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Chicago Fire Department, EMS Division
In June 2005, former Fire Commissioner
Cortez Trotter of the Chicago Fire Department
developed a Segway Personal Transporter
(PT) emergency response team that provided
paramedic support during special events in
the city’s downtown and lakefront area. This
first responder program was so successful
that in October 2005 Commissioner Trotter
expanded the initiative to form an Advanced
Life Support (ALS) Segway team that would
patrol the city’s central business district
– also known as the “Loop” – on a daily basis.
“Stories trickle back
to me from the ALS
Segway Team and I
know of occasions
when they have been
first on the scene and
have been instrumental
in saving lives. We’re
very proud of them.”
- Deputy Chief Paramedic
Mark Linse
Chicago Fire Department,
EMS Division
Segway
To learnIreland
more
Maxem
Technologies
information
or to
Unita D2,
find
local
Southern
Link
Authorized
Business
Park,
Segway Dealer,
Naas,
Co. Kildare.
please
visit
www.segway.com
www.segway.ie
or call
+353
45 889 529
866.4SEGWAY
www.segway.com
Deputy Chief Paramedic Mark Linse with
the EMS Support and Logistics Division and
Commander Sean Flynn, formerly of the Fire
Commissioner’s Office spearheaded the
development of the ALS Segway program,
and according to Linse the program has been
very successful. “Stories trickle back to me
from the ALS Segway Team and I know of
occasions when they have been first on the
scene and have been instrumental in saving
lives. We’re very proud of them.”
The Chicago Fire Department has four
Segway PTs in the EMS division, and during
the special events season in the summer
and fall they utilize these units to provide
emergency medical services. “They patrol
the central business district in teams of two
consisting of a paramedic-in-charge and a fire
paramedic,” says Linse. “They run in tandem
with each of the Segway PTs carrying specific
medical equipment to make the team fully
ALS equipped.”
Emergency Response Indoors
and Out
The Segway PT has developed a unique
role in the Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) urban environment. With it’s battery
powered operation, non-marking tires and
no emissions producing silent propulsion,
the Chicago Fire Department has found this
combination to be “building friendly” as they
access elevators in high rise buildings, while
responding to emergency calls.
“As far as I know we’re the first fire
department in the U.S. to use ALS capable
Segway PTs for medical responses, and
it is due in large part to the vision of
Commissioner Trotter who is a paramedic
himself,” says Linse. “ His vision was
instrumental with coming up with ways to
better provide fire and emergency services
to the citizens and visitors in Chicago. When
the weather does not allow the comfortable
use of the PTs on the streets, the units are
then deployed in the underground pedway
system beneath the central business district.
The pedway system takes them close to the
incident where they then come up to street
level and provide patient care. It is has proven
to be an incredibly effective system.”
First on Scene with Essential
Equipment and Medicine
“Each unit is equipped with an Automated
External Defibrillators (AEDs) which give the
paramedics the opportunity to defibrillate a
patient who’s in cardiac arrest.”
In addition to an AED, the ALS Segway teams
in Chicago carry a variety of pharmaceuticals,
advanced airway supplies, intubation equipment, IV initiation supplies, patient assessment equipment such as blood pressure
cuffs, stethoscopes and blood sugar testing,
plus oxygen, wound care equipment, trauma
supplies and an OB kit for delivering a baby.
All of this equipment is divided among the six
cargo bags on the paired ALS Segway PTs.
The Chicago ALS Segway teams work in a
tiered response fashion. They monitor the
radio and are often the first to respond to
incidents in the Loop. An ALS ambulance
Segway® and the Segway ‘flyguy’ logo are registered trademarks of Segway Inc. (“Segway”). Other marks including InfoKey and LeanSteer, are trademarks or common law marks of Segway.
Segway reserves all rights in its trademarks. Trademarks not owned by Segway are the property of their respective holders as designated. Copyright © 2006. Segway Inc. All rights reserved.
Executive
Summary
THE CHALLENGE
• Provide quick
response to medical
emergencies in dense
urban, pedestrian
environments
• Provide more
in-depth emergency
medical care
THE SOLUTION
• Acquire four Segway
PTs and pair them in
teams of two
• Equip each team of
two Segway PTs with
a range of live-saving equipment and
supplies to make them
Advanced Life Support
(ALS) capable
• Assign ALS Segway
Teams to patrol the
city’s central business
district and monitor
radio calls to initiate
response
• Use ALS Segway
Teams to provide
emergency medical
service during largescale events along the
city’s lakeshore
BENEFITS TO THE
CUSTOMER
• Quicker response
times to medical emergencies in the Loop
• Able to provide
advanced life-saving
treatment to patients
before an ambulance
arrives
• Improved sightlines
and maneuverability
to provide emergency
care during large
events
• Abilty to access high
rise buildings and
elevators
CONTINUED, Fire/Emergency Response
Chicago Fire Department, EMS Division
and /or engine also responds to these calls to
provide additional manpower and equipment
as well as patient transport. Each member of
the ALS Segway Team works 4 days on, four
days off, for a 10-hour day. Each month, two
teams are on patrol and every 60 to 90 days
these paramedics are rotated back to an ambulance while other paramedics are assigned
to the ALS Segway Team.
Immediate Patient Access at Crowded
Events and Pedestrian Areas
The new Fire Commissioner, Raymond
Orozco, is also an advocate of the use of
ALS Segway Teams in large-scale events
in the city’s Grant and Millennium Parks,
and at the North Avenue Beach during the
massive Air & Water Show each summer.
“What’s nice about the Segway PTs during
events is that first of all you’re higher so
you’re able to see over the crowd,” says Linse.
“In addition, you are very maneuverable and
able to zip in and out of the crowd. When we
get a call for a patient having difficulty breathing, the ALS Segway team gets there quickly,
assesses the patient and is able to initiate
care immediately. We then have our ALS Med
Carts follow them to pick up the patients and
transport them to a perimeter location where
an ambulance can be waiting. During the
Taste of Chicago and other large special event
venues, this is one of the most effective ways
for immediate patient access, treatment and
transport.
According to Linse, the paramedics and
the public love the ALS Segway Teams.
“The public sees the ALS Segway Team as
an example of our innovation and they are
always asking if they can have their pictures
taken with the paramedics,” says Linse.
“Imagine that you’re visiting the Chicago
Loop from another country and up rolls the
Chicago Fire Department’s ALS Segway
Team. Not only is it very cool, but it is also
very effective as a medical resource and
has the added benefit as a positive public
relations tool.”
Note: In May 2006, Fire Commissioner
Cortez Trotter retired from the Chicago
Fire Department and accepted a position
as the Chief Emergency Officer for the
City of Chicago.
Imagine that you’re
visiting the Chicago
Loop from another
country and up rolls
the Chicago Fire
Department’s ALS
Segway Team. Not only
is it very cool, but it is
also very effective as a
medical resource and
has the added benefit
as a positive public
relations tool.”
- Deputy Chief Paramedic
Mark Linse
Chicago Fire Department,
EMS Division
Segway® and the Segway ‘flyguy’ logo are registered trademarks of Segway Inc. (“Segway”). Other marks including InfoKey and LeanSteer, are trademarks or common law marks of Segway.
Segway reserves all rights in its trademarks. Trademarks not owned by Segway are the property of their respective holders as designated. Copyright (C) 2006. Segway Inc. All rights reserved.
Case Study
Ferrari Security Rediscovers
the Advantages of Mobility COMMERCIAL SECURITY
Ferrari S.p.A, Maranello, Italy
Customer
Ferrari S.p.A
Since its inception in 1947 Ferrari has
manufactured automobiles and managed
its racing and automotive business from its
headquarters in Maranello, Italy. Maranello
is home to the heart of Ferrari, including
its automotive production plant, research
and development center, a 2,976.41-meter
Formula One race track, and a museum
called Galleria Ferrari. Located in the Emilia
Romagna region of Italy, approximately
50 km (37 miles) West of Bologna, Ferrari
welcomes guests from around the world to
its headquarters and accommodates about
2,870 employees.
Market sector
Private Security
The Challenge
• Increase security
effectiveness
• Enable security
personnel to easily
travel in and out of a
variety of buildings and
venues
• Employ intuitive
products so security
officers can focus
on patrolling and
surveillance
The Maranello facilities reflect Ferrari’s
long-standing and admired reputation in
the development of automotive technology,
the competitive world of racing, and
sophisticated high-performance vehicles.
The campus’ 520,000 square meters features
diverse architecture and landscape, reflecting
the company’s emphasis on technology
development.
To learn more
information or to
find a local
Authorized
Segway Dealer,
please visit
www.segway.com
or call
866.4SEGWAY
www.segway.com
“We have a guard who
has been working
here for 35 years….
During his shift we
had a breach in the
physical security
on the Formula One
track and he was
able to stop three
intruders by himself
because he was on
the Segway PT.”
- Frederick Gilger,
Chief Security Officer
of Ferrari’s Maranello facility
Executive
Summary
The Solution
• Obtain six Segway PTs
for use by security
team
• Increase the security
team’s visibility on the
corporate campus
Seeking Quality and Efficiency
for the Security Team
Frederick Gilger, Chief Security Officer of
Ferrari’s Maranello facility, is responsible for
security pertaining to all physical structures,
information technology and operations
crises. He oversees a team of 60-70 security
personnel who are responsible for securing
approximately 200,000 square meters
of buildings and 78,000 square meters of
outdoor space including the Formula One
race track.
In 2006 Gilger was looking for a tool that
could help give an upscale feel to the security
team and help it communicate better with
Ferrari employees. He also wanted the same
security team to be able to provide more
services in the same amount of time. Lastly,
Ferrari was seeking products that were
innovative and high-quality – just like the cars
that they design and produce.
Segway® and the Segway ‘flyguy’ logo are registered trademarks of Segway Inc. (“Segway”). Other marks including InfoKey and LeanSteer, are trademarks or common law marks of Segway.
Segway reserves all rights in its trademarks. Trademarks not owned by Segway are the property of their respective holders as designated. Copyright © 2007. Segway Inc. All rights reserved.
Benefits to the
Customer
• Can respond to
security breaches
quickly and quietly
• Increase the number
of patrol rounds with
the same number of
officers
• Respond to alarms
indoors and out
without have to switch
devices
• Utilize a product
that fits the values of
the Ferrari brand of
innovation, quality and
design
CONTINUED, Commerical Security Ferrari S.p.A, Maranello, Italy
After seeing a Segway® Personal Transporter
(PT) at a Formula One event, Gilger started
to contemplate the product as an option for
Ferrari. “I have been in the security business
for quite a while and I know other companies
using Segway PTs,” he said. “We had to find
something that would give a different quality
to our surveillance.”
Gilger contacted a local Segway Authorized
Distributor who helped to arrange an
evaluation of Segway PTs. During the
evaluation phase, Gilger asked everyone on
his team to use it one or two times each.
As the team assessed the product, they
considered how it would impact the efficiency
and the quality of the service they provide.
“We soon realized that people were very
interested and amazingly, it was not just
the young employees. We have a guard who
has been working here for 35 years. He is
really a fan of the Segway PT and is very
impressed. During his shift we had a breach
in the physical security on the Formula One
track and he was able to stop three intruders
by himself because he was on the Segway PT,”
explains Gilger.
A Security Tool with Design
and Quality
After completing the evaluation Ferrari
decided to obtain six Segway PTs for the
security team to use at the Maranello
facility, as well as special events like Formula
One races and Ferrari’s 60th Anniversary
celebration.
Gilger cites a number of reasons for
choosing Segway PTs over other options
available overseas that didn’t meet Ferrari’s
expectations for design or quality. “We
appreciate that it is incredibly efficient and
almost silent. You can arrive in an area
quietly, which sometimes can be an asset,”
he said. In addition, security patrols can now
make up to four rounds a day using Segway
PTs, versus one or two when they were
walking. After years of relying on walking
and cars for patrolling, the Ferrari security
team rediscovered the advantages of being
mobile. “The Segway PT is good to use when
responding to an alarm, because you don’t
have to worry about switching devices – you
can just step on and go. You can go anywhere
in the company very quickly.”
Ferrari Headquarters in Maranello, Italy
“We appreciate that [the Segway PT] is incredibly efficient
and almost silent. You can arrive in an area quietly, which
sometimes can be an asset.”
- Frederick Gilger, Chief Security Officer of Ferrari’s Maranello facility
Segway® and the Segway ‘flyguy’ logo are registered trademarks of Segway Inc. (“Segway”). Other marks including InfoKey and LeanSteer, are trademarks or common law marks of Segway.
Segway reserves all rights in its trademarks. Trademarks not owned by Segway are the property of their respective holders as designated. Copyright © 2007. Segway Inc. All rights reserved.
Masdar City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1 of 1
Masdar City
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City
Coordinates:
24°25′45.00″N 54°37′6.00″E
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Masdar (Arabic: ‫ ﻣﺼﺪر‬maṣdar, "source") is a planned city in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates.
Designed by the British architectural firm Foster and Partners, the city will rely entirely on solar energy,
with a sustainable, zero-carbon, zero-waste ecology. The city is being constructed 17 kilometres (11 mi)
east-southeast of the city of Abu Dhabi, beside Abu Dhabi International Airport.
Contents
Rendering of the future Masdar
City from the air
1 Construction
2 Reaction
3 References
4 External links
Construction
The initiative is headed by the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company (ADFEC). [1] Initiated in 2006, the project is estimated to take some 10 years
to complete, with the first phase complete and habitable in 2009. The city will cost $US22 billion to build and be home to 50,000 people and
1,500 businesses.[2] The city is intended to cover six square kilometers, with no point further than 200 m from a public transport link, housing
energy, science and technology communities. The city will cover 1,483 acres (6.00 km² ) and include housing, commercial areas, a university,
and the headquarters of the Future Energy Company. [3]
Masdar will be the site of a university, the Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, and some 1,500 companies. Notable partners in the
projects include Massachusetts Institute of Technology, General Electric, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsubishi, Rolls-Royce, Total S.A., Mitsui,
Fiat, and the German solar energy Conergy, which is planning a 40 MW solar power plant. Design of the central Headquarters Building has
recently been awarded to Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture.
Reaction
The project is supported by the global conservation charity World Wide Fund for Nature and the sustainability group BioRegional. In response
to the project's commitment to zero carbon, zero waste and other environmentally friendly goals, WWF and BioRegional have endor sed Masdar
City as an official One Planet Living Community. [4][5]
Some skeptics fear that the city will be only symbolic for Abu Dhabi, and that it may become just a luxury development for the affluent. [2]
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
^ The Masdar Initiative (http://www.masdaruae.com/text/introduction.aspx) . Retrieved on 2008-02-20.
^ a b Work starts on Gulf 'green city' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7237672.stm) . BBC (2008-02-10).
^ Dilworth, Dianna (2007-08-01). "Zero Carbon; Zero Waste in Abu Dhabi". BusinessWeek. Retrieved on 2008-02-10.
^ World Wildlife Fund via Panda.org (2008-01-13). "WWF, Abu Dhabi unveil plans for sustainable city
(http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=121361) ". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-04-23.
5. ^ BioRegional.com (2008-01-08). "One Planet Living: United Arab Emirates Endorsed Community - Masdar City
(http://www.bioregional.com/oneplanetliving/uae/masdar) ". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-04-23.
External links
Masdar City official website (http://www.masdaruae.com/)
Foster + Partners information page (http://www.fosterandpartners.com/Projects/1515/Default.aspx)
Masdar Headquarters by Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture (http://www.smithgill.com/MasdarHeadquarters.htm)
WWF and BioRegional's One Planet Living website (http://www.oneplanetliving.org/)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City"
Categories: Abu Dhabi | Renewable energy | Planned cities | Norman Foster buildings
This page was last modified on 23 April 2008, at 21:55.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
30/04/2008 14:08