"To make driving less energy intensive than flying, the fuel economy of the entire US fleet of light-duty vehicles would have to improve from the current 21.5 mpg (10.9 l/100 km) to at least 33.8 mpg (7.0 l/100 km) at the current vehicle load, or vehicle load would have to increase from the current 1.38 persons to at least 2.3 persons."

1) Pass a law requiring all light vehicles sold starting in 2018 be PHEVs or EVs.

2) Create a "Crush the Clunkers" program that sets a sweet trade in value for low MPG vehicles.

One decade. Problem solved.

We could calculate the health savings resulting from a 80%, 90% reduction in fuel use and use that money.

If we really wanted to be creative we could the diverted funds from Oil War IV.

The real issue here is avoiding the cost of extreme climate change. We're going to spend small money soon or massive money down the road.

The problems are many. Many more are getting sick and die from man made pollution. Direct and indirect health care cost are going up every month and will soon reach 20% of GDP in many places.

The total cost (in human lives and $$$$) of increased pollution in the last 40 years is higher than the last 10 wars added together. If not checked, the next 40 years may be 3 to 4 times more costly.

What is happening in Asia's large cities (and in many other places) is the beginning of much worst days to come.

USA, Canada and Australia are still the top per capita polluters of the world at 20 to 24 tonnes/year for each of us.

China, India, Brazil and Europe are still very far behind.

Transferring factories to Asia helped to reduce our pollution growth rate but quickly increased theirs.

China is building 100,000+ Km of high speed electric rails, hundreds e-subway and urban trains, dozens of NPP, electric city buses, electric taxis, electric vehicles and bikes but it is not being done fast enough to match their industrial growth. It may take another 20 years or so before things get better. Singapore has done it and other Asian cities will do it.

All this effort to keep people in their cars? Let me point out this article flat out said travel by rail was already the most efficient so why don't we just encourage more people to use rail?

One way of "making automobiles as efficient as possible" is to operate them like trains.

http://www.tevproject.com/

TEV is an E-guideway concept: EVs can travel on TEV’s electric highways at much higher speeds and in far greater safety than even the latest and greatest in high-tech cars can on a motorway today. Automatic control enables close-coupling of vehicles (described by some as ‘convoying’ or ‘platoons’), so TEV has a vastly greater passenger carrying capacity than traditional roads and even high speed commuter trains. Since the vehicles are powered directly with electricity as they travel, there is no limit to how far they can drive without recharging; in fact, batteries are recharged during the journey, during which time the EVs burn no petroleum and produce no local emissions.

Platooning improves aerodynamic efficiency, directly powering vehicles instead of charging/discharging batteries improves electrical efficiency, and the covered roadbed reduces rolling friction.

@ai vin,
Thanks for the link. Indeed, TEV is a fascinating concept than can solve both the traffic jams and the range issue of BEV. This type of concept was started by Alden Self-Transit System Corp of Massachusette in the 60's, and even endorsed by then governor Volpe. Now, over half a century away, we have better technology to realize the concept. However, given the tremendous scope of the concept, the capital investment required would be monumental, as well as socio-political hurdles. Recall why and how the non-polluting electric trolley cars of LA was torn down to make ways for polluting diesel city buses, and this, in LA, where smog is a bigger problem than anywhere else.

Someone needs to figure out how to make the VW XL1 a lot cheaper. Cut some corners to cut cost.

A hybrid drive chain seems to be too expensive for such a vehicle. A small ICE with a glorified starter motor for boost should do it. Or even as a BEV is should achieve sufficient range simply by swapping the ICE and gearbox for more batteries (I haven't made any calculations - just brainstorming here).

The very aerodynamic body only makes sense for prolonged travel at highway speeds. To that end, it is most likely more optimal to go for an efficient ICE (diesel) than BEV. Of course, any aerodynamic car would suffer from sluggish acceleration from the meager ICE sufficient to propel it at 100 mph. An SUV has the inverse problem - even SUVs that are very quick off the line achieve less than admirable top speeds.

Anyway, like Harvey says, if we really need to, we can double the average fuel economy without breaking a sweat. And we can go beyond that as well. At the expense of some luxury, I am afraid... ;-/

Plain dead (over) weight is more of a problem for the average family vehicle. Driving around with 4000+ lbs consumes too much energy unless you normally carry 10+ passengers.

Future e-cars will have to be much lighter if we realy want to reduce the energy required per passenger/Km or miles.

Ultra light weight: bodies, 5-5-5 batteries, e-motors, e-controls, e-ancillaries, windows, flexible solar cells, wheels, tires and other on-board equipment will have to be used.

The current 4000 lbs vehicles could be reduced to 2000 lbs, than to 1500 lbs and eventually to 1000 lbs for smaller units.