2009-01-01 Transit Pulse

I get a mixed message about ATRA, aided by these current opening statements.

Starting out there are multiple terms like, transit, advanced transit, advanced public transport, transportation. There is no direct mention of PRTⁱ, although toward the end it appears as an undefined major contributor. The initial emphasis is for urban mobility. Then inter-state is added on.

Many readers are familiar enough with terminology to identify differences in these terms. But many others, especially community leaders we would expect to understand and support, as well as the public, do not understand some of the distinctions.

I suggest the primary function is Urban Transportation and Mobility. ATRA emphasis is on the Public Transportation, (or Transport), part of it. There are several options under Public Transportation, including PRT. ATRA’s focus is primarily on automation as a means to achieve mobility with significantly more energy and land use efficiency, and reduced pollution. I believe the principal emphasis for overall community economic, and lifestyle functions should be on personal direct to destination transportation approaching or emulating that provided by advanced automobile means. (Apparently ATRA does not want to include advanced automobile designs and performance, except perhaps as a basis for comparisons.)

At least because of similarities of the designs and technology ATRA interest is in transportation not always personal where it fits special purpose and usually short distance routes such as airports, and for short to moderate range inter-city applications.

Against that perception my mixed message comes from what appears to be interest in automation per se, and somehow there is a canonical advantage thus with walking, biking, obesity, need for density, reduction of automobile use, etc. These items may enter as a part of favorable community interaction, but are not primary compared to the mobility, energy, land use, pollution ones. It is not clear for example that some form of improved automobile will not win out in the long run if the road capacity issue can be solved.

Use of the word transit complicates the picture. Many equate transit with mass transit. This includes the current form of USDOT. It is easy for some to accept incremental improvements, and possibly even complete automation of mass transit systems as sufficient to meet future complex demands. ATRA seems to support that view considering the emphasis on success in various and usually specialized mass transit facilities at airports for example. These are certainly in support of automation feasibility, but there is more involved than vehicle design, and technology when extrapolating to a whole community. Considering the cost-benefit failures of LRTⁱ in other than a few very dense USA communities, would ATRA recommend, if feasible, complete automation of typical LRT systems?

Certainly urban mobility needs a strong advocate for identifying and evaluating large step improvements, primarily through technology, and in direct competition with the automobile, the current primary source. But there are more basic parameters than cutting street traffic in half, and community-friendly transit. These are more in the oft used slogan category, rather than meaningful sorting, evaluations, and performance predictions of several new approaches on total system bases when applied to community needs and national interests.

Happy New Year!

Walt Brewer