Mandating Smaller Vehicles

A Practical Policy to Reduce Fossil Fuel Use and Traffic Congestion

Reducing society’s dependence on fossil fuels is one of the most urgent public policy challenges of the twenty-first century. Governments have attempted to address this issue through fuel taxes, emissions regulations, electric vehicle incentives, and investments in public transportation.

While these strategies are important, they often overlook a central driver of energy consumption: the steadily increasing size of personal vehicles. Over the past three decades, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and large pickup trucks have come to dominate new vehicle sales across North America. Because larger vehicles consume more fuel, occupy more road space, and pose greater risks to pedestrians and cyclists, their widespread adoption has slowed progress toward climate goals while worsening congestion in cities.

One of the most effective and practical policies available today would be to mandate smaller vehicle sizes through a licensing system based on each vehicle’s physical footprint. Such a system would reduce fossil fuel consumption, improve traffic flow, enhance public safety, and make more efficient use of urban space.

Vehicle size has a direct and measurable impact on fuel consumption. Larger vehicles require more energy to accelerate and maintain speed because they weigh more and create greater aerodynamic drag. Even when manufacturers improve engine efficiency, these gains are often offset by increases in vehicle mass and dimensions. For example, a Mini Cooper averages roughly 32 miles per gallon in combined driving conditions, while midsize SUVs typically achieve only 20 to 27 miles per gallon. This represents a difference of approximately 20 to 40 percent more fuel used per kilometre travelled. When multiplied across millions of vehicles, the effect becomes enormous. A widespread shift toward smaller cars would therefore produce immediate reductions in gasoline consumption without requiring new technology or major infrastructure investment.

The physical footprint of modern vehicles has increased dramatically in recent decades, further intensifying their environmental impact. A Mini Cooper hatchback measures approximately 151 inches in length and about 67 inches in width, making it far smaller than most vehicles currently sold in North America. By contrast, a typical midsize sedan is roughly 190 inches long, while many midsize SUVs exceed 195 inches in length and are substantially wider. This means that a common SUV can occupy 40 to 80 percent more road space than a compact car. Because road capacity depends partly on the length of vehicles travelling within lanes, the shift toward larger vehicles has quietly reduced the efficiency of existing transportation infrastructure. Encouraging smaller vehicles would allow more cars to move through the same road network without widening highways or building new lanes.

A licensing system based on vehicle footprint would provide a practical method for encouraging this transition. Under such a system, vehicles occupying less road space would be easier and cheaper to license, while oversized vehicles would require additional permits or higher registration fees. Importantly, this approach would not eliminate access to larger vehicles entirely. Instead, it would ensure that their use better reflects genuine need rather than convenience or habit. Commercial operators, tradespeople, and families requiring additional passenger space could still obtain larger vehicles, but the policy would discourage unnecessary oversizing for routine commuting. By aligning licensing rules with spatial efficiency, governments could reshape consumer incentives in a way that supports environmental goals while preserving flexibility.

Reducing vehicle size would also significantly decrease traffic congestion. Traffic jams are commonly understood as the result of too many vehicles on the road, but the size of those vehicles is equally important. Longer vehicles require greater spacing between drivers, especially in stop-and-go conditions. A midsize SUV that is 25 to 30 percent longer than a compact car reduces the number of vehicles that can pass through an intersection during each traffic signal cycle. Over time, this difference accumulates across entire urban road networks.

Encouraging smaller vehicles would therefore increase traffic throughput without the need for costly infrastructure expansion. In dense cities where road widening is often impossible, this advantage is especially valuable.

Parking availability provides another example of how vehicle size affects urban efficiency. Larger vehicles require wider parking spaces and larger turning radii, reducing the total number of vehicles that can be accommodated within existing parking facilities. As a result, drivers of oversized vehicles often spend more time searching for parking, which contributes directly to congestion. If average vehicle size decreased, cities could increase parking capacity without constructing new garages or surface lots. Land currently devoted to oversized parking infrastructure could instead be repurposed for housing, green space, or pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, improving overall quality of life in urban areas.

Vehicle size also plays a critical role in road safety. Larger vehicles provide greater protection to their own occupants in collisions because heavier structures absorb more impact energy. For example, driver fatality rates in minicars are estimated at approximately 82 deaths per million vehicle-years, compared with roughly 15 deaths per million vehicle-years for very large SUVs.

However, this advantage for drivers comes at a cost to everyone else on the road. Larger vehicles pose significantly greater risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and occupants of smaller cars. Research shows that SUVs are about 44 percent more likely than passenger cars to fatally injure pedestrians, largely because their higher front ends strike the torso rather than the legs during collisions. As cities become more densely populated and more people choose walking or cycling for short trips, encouraging smaller vehicles would improve safety for vulnerable road users while still maintaining acceptable levels of protection for drivers.

Structural mismatch between vehicles of different sizes further increases collision severity. The rocker panels of many SUVs sit approximately 390 millimetres above the ground, compared with about 175 millimetres for subcompact cars. This difference means that SUVs often override the energy-absorbing structures of smaller vehicles during crashes rather than engaging them directly. As a result, occupants of smaller cars face greater injury risk when struck by larger vehicles. Reducing the number of oversized vehicles on the road would help address this compatibility problem and create a safer overall traffic environment.

Some critics argue that consumers prefer larger vehicles because they offer greater comfort, cargo capacity, and perceived safety. While these preferences are understandable, they are also shaped by decades of marketing and regulatory decisions that have favoured larger vehicles over compact alternatives. In many cases, drivers choose SUVs not because they require extra space but because these vehicles have become the default option in the marketplace.

A licensing system based on vehicle footprint would help correct this imbalance by making the environmental and social costs of large vehicles more visible. Over time, manufacturers would respond by producing a wider range of compact vehicles that meet consumer expectations for comfort and performance.

Another concern is that regulating vehicle size might restrict personal freedom. However, governments already regulate many aspects of transportation in order to protect public safety and environmental quality. Speed limits, emissions standards, licensing requirements, and safety inspections are all widely accepted forms of regulation because individual driving choices affect the broader community.

Oversized vehicles consume more fuel, produce more emissions, and increase risks for other road users. A footprint-based licensing system would simply extend existing regulatory principles to address these impacts more directly. Rather than eliminating consumer choice, the policy would encourage choices that better reflect shared social responsibilities.

Importantly, such a system could be designed to ensure fairness across different regions and occupations. Rural residents often travel longer distances and may require larger vehicles for practical reasons, while tradespeople depend on cargo capacity for their work. These groups could receive exemptions or alternative licensing categories that recognize their needs. In contrast, urban drivers who primarily use their vehicles for short daily commutes would have strong incentives to select smaller cars better suited to dense environments. By tailoring the policy to local conditions, governments could maximize its benefits while minimizing unintended burdens.

Mandating smaller vehicle footprints would also stimulate innovation within the automotive industry. When regulations change, manufacturers adapt quickly to meet new requirements. If governments signalled a long-term commitment to reducing vehicle size, automakers would invest more heavily in designing compact vehicles that combine efficiency, safety, and comfort.

Smaller vehicles are easier to electrify, require fewer raw materials to manufacture, and place less strain on charging infrastructure. As a result, footprint-based licensing would complement rather than compete with the transition toward electric transportation.

Economic benefits would accompany these environmental improvements. Smaller vehicles typically cost less to purchase, insure, maintain, and fuel. Households that switch to compact cars could save thousands of dollars over the lifetime of a vehicle. Governments would also benefit from reduced infrastructure maintenance costs because lighter vehicles cause less wear on roads and bridges. These savings could be redirected toward public transportation improvements, cycling infrastructure, or renewable energy projects, creating a positive cycle of sustainable investment.

Policies similar to footprint-based licensing already exist in other areas of transportation management. Many cities regulate vehicle access through congestion pricing zones, emissions-based restrictions, and parking controls that vary according to vehicle size. These measures demonstrate that transportation behavior can change rapidly when incentives are aligned with public goals. Extending this approach to vehicle licensing would address one of the root causes of excessive fuel consumption rather than merely treating its consequences.

Reducing fossil fuel use requires both technological innovation and thoughtful policy design. While electric vehicles will play an essential role in the future of transportation, they cannot solve the problem alone, especially in the near term. The physical size of vehicles remains a critical factor influencing energy consumption, congestion, and public safety. By mandating smaller vehicle footprints through a fair and flexible licensing system, governments could achieve immediate reductions in fuel use while also improving traffic flow and making cities safer and more livable.

In an era defined by climate urgency and increasing urban congestion, policymakers must consider solutions that are both practical and effective. Encouraging smaller vehicles represents one of the most direct and achievable strategies available today. A footprint-based licensing system would align individual transportation choices with collective environmental goals, helping societies move toward a cleaner, safer, and more efficient transportation future.

An Idea for Mark Carney

Beyond the policy realm, this situation also presents a remarkable business opportunity for Canada. Until now, Canada, the United States, and Mexico have effectively joined forces to build cars for the major US automakers under the integrated supply chains of the USMCA agreement. Canada has contributed both the modern assembly plants and the highly skilled workforce necessary to produce vehicles at scale.

However, Donald Trump has declared that the United States intends to move all future car manufacturing back onto American soil. While this protectionist pivot poses a clear threat to Canada’s existing auto sector, it also clears the way for a new national strategy. In my view, this represents an extraordinary opening for Canadian industrial leadership.

Mark Carney should seek out an investor or a consortium of investors prepared to fund an all-Canadian auto manufacturer dedicated to developing a new line of Canadian-branded vehicles.

This company would specialize in smaller-footprint electric cars designed from the ground up for urban and suburban use. These vehicles would be manufactured in Canada using Canadian talent and Canadian resources, then sold not only domestically but also in global markets eager for efficient, sustainable transportation.

This new line would incorporate top-notch design tailored to city driving: maneuverable, space-efficient, and pedestrian-friendly. Crucially, these vehicles would feature self-charging battery technology, such as extended-range electric or advanced hybrid systems, reducing range anxiety and the need for frequent plug-in charging.

As societies around the world move toward a cleaner, safer, and more efficient transportation future, exactly the kind of future described in this article, the market for such vehicles is bound to thrive. Canada has the chance to build them first.

The only question is whether we have the vision to begin.

We would love to hear your feedback on this article. We welcome your comments and suggested topics you would like us to write on.

We want to make The Pathfinder a community where members exchange ideas. If you want to share your story on The Pathfinder or suggest a topic for an article, please get in touch with Ron at ronhume28@gmail.com

The Pathfinder is a not-for-profit newsletter.