To ATRA Leadership and Membership

December 8, 2008

To ATRA Leadership and Membership:

The country is facing a series of major challenges to the urban mobility on which our society depends. If not addressed effectively, these may lead to grave consequences. I believe there is an opportunity here for ATRA to play a major role in addressing these issues.

ATRA has long advocated transit strategies that offer significant improvements on the capabilities of conventional transit in providing urban mobility. Much of the impetus for ATRA’s actions stems from the desire to provide a meaningful alternative to the automobile for urban travel, in order to ameliorate the deleterious effects of automobiles on the urban fabric (e.g., land use, noise, safety, accessibility issues, etc.)

We are now facing two additional factors that make a meaningful alternative to the automobile not only even more desirable, but likely, imperative. These are the availability of petroleum and the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide in aggravating global climate change.

We have a time window, of uncertain duration, in which to respond. I think ATRA can, if it chooses, step up to the role of being a catalyst in developing this response.

THE CHALLENGES

Life in the United States is highly dependent upon urban mobility. The automobile is the principal provider of this urban travel; we are an automobile-oriented society. Nationwide, transit plays a relatively minor role, accommodating on the order of 5% of urban travel.

Our automobiles use petroleum as the base for their fuel supply. At present, we are in a period of low gasoline prices, due to recession-induced reduction of demand. This may well be a fool’s paradise, however. Production from the world’s conventional oil fields is declining at ~8% per year, and substantial capital input is necessary to maintain output. In the face of low petroleum prices, by all accounts, nowhere near the necessary amount of capital input is being provided. Thus, for the near term, production from conventional sources will continue to decline. There appears to be abundant supply available from non-conventional sources, but this is not cheap oil; in fact, it is very expensive. It won’t be brought to market in measurable quantity at today’s depressed prices. So, even if demand were to remain low, supply will eventually drop to where it matches. At this point, prices will rise. And at some point in the future, the economy is expected to regain its strength; whatever reduction in petroleum demand resulted from the recession will be erased and demand will rise. Either way, a supply crunch is in the offing, and prices will likely rise substantially. High School GED

Last summer we experienced a foretaste of this, with gasoline prices in the neighborhood of $4/gallon. Although this appears to have been at least partially induced by speculation, the price levels nonetheless gave us an indication of the effects of high gasoline prices. They caused a high level of consternation, with considerable apocalyptic discussion and dire predictions of effects on the economy and society. In the future, it may well be the case that $4 gasoline will seem like the good old days. The impact of what appears to be a steady decline in the availability of inexpensive petroleum will be severe to what we now view as our way of life. Although we are currently enjoying a temporary respite in the form of low gasoline prices, the apocalypse is still out there, just below the horizon.

The other factor, climate change, is likewise linked to petroleum. Combustion of carbon-based fuels produces carbon dioxide as a byproduct. The growing concern about the effects of this gas on climate change is leading to worldwide efforts to reduce the consumption of petroleum-based fuels. We may be facing forced reductions in petroleum usage for fuels, or alternatively, the imposition of higher fees and taxes to discourage its use. Here again, absent other developments, the impact on automobile travel could be severe, with consequent disadvantages to our present levels of urban mobility.

In short, the twin factors of petroleum supply and carbon dioxide limitation pose severe challenges to automobile usage as we know it today, and consequently, to the way of life that we experience today. On a time frame, one might expect that within ten years, problems will become severe. Within twenty, they will become enormous. Homeschooling

So, how to respond? Our present means of urban transport are predominantly automobiles and transit.

AUTOMOBILES

It may be that automobile technology will evolve sufficiently to mitigate these challenges, allowing life to otherwise go on pretty much as now. The advent of hybrid, plug hybrid and fuel cell automobiles may render these worries moot. There are reasons to be skeptical of the automobile’s ability to adapt to these challenges, however:

1. QUANTITY. In order to make a significant dent in automobile fuel usage, something on the order of 30 – 50 million “new age” automobiles must be put into place. Current estimates suggest that in the next few years, an annual production of 1 million hybrid cars per year is a realistic target. These vehicles incorporate substantial deviations from conventional automobiles, and ramping up their production to high annual levels is problematic. Placing 30 – 50 million of them, or their plug hybrid and fuel cell counterparts, into the nation’s existing automobile fleet is likely going to take longer than 10 to 20 years.


2. NEODYMIUM. The electric motors in these electrically-propelled cars are expected to be the permanent magnet variety, with neodymium-based magnets. These motors can pack substantial power into small packages, and are ideal for automobiles. Where do we get all that neodymium? The principal neodymium source is China; the principal magnet supplier is China. We are risking a dependence upon a single country, of uncertain friendship, for our future fleet of advanced electrical automobiles. And the quantities of neodymium necessary to supply the motors of the desired fleet of vehicles are far beyond current production rates. It is not clear that the reserves of neodymium are even there in the amount necessary in the first place.


3. LITHIUM. The battery packs for the envisioned advanced automobiles are presumed to be a lithium-ion design, because of the immense energy and power storage they offer. Where will all that lithium come from? As with neodymium, we are talking about quantities far in excess of what we currently use. And the worldwide reserves of lithium have been brought into question.


4. PLATINUM/PALLADIUM. The fuel cell option typically involves the use of metals like platinum or palladium in the fuel cell design. Neither of these are abundant. And although efforts are underway to minimize the amounts needed per unit, the levels of production required will result in huge increases to current quantities consumed. Where will it come from?


5. HYDROGEN. Fuel cells require hydrogen as a fuel; it must be made widely available in large quantities. The techniques and infrastructure to accomplish this are not only not in place, they are not even clearly understood at the present.

online degree in finance

There are possibilities for the use of bio-fuels to get around the dependence on petroleum. However, the current experience with using food-based sources for bio-fuels is not a happy one. Alternative bio-sources exist, but they are somewhat speculative. And the scale required is immense. They may be of assistance, but not likely THE answer.

Thus, there are a variety of reasons for doubting the ability of automobile technology to evolve to meet the twin challenges of petroleum supply and carbon dioxide emission, at least in the time frame necessary to address these issues.

TRANSIT

Transit is often proposed as an answer. The simple fact, though, and this is no surprise to those within ATRA, is that with transit as we know it today, we cannot afford to build and/or operate enough of it to make the impact we need. Transit today carries roughly 5% of urban trips. To make a meaningful response to the petroleum and carbon dioxide challenges, it should probably be on the order of 50% - an order of magnitude increase. marketing graduate degree

The primary offerings in the transit toolkit today are rail and bus systems. Rail costs on the order of $50 million per mile at grade, $150 million per mile elevated, and well in excess of $250 million per mile underground. Building throughout the country sufficient rail systems, in terms of coverage to meet this demand, is simply out of the question.

Bus systems, though much less capital intensive, are extremely labor intensive. The operating costs for a bus system expanded to meet an order of magnitude increase in ridership are likewise out of the question.

SO, WHAT NOW?

If we are to avoid severe disruptions to our economy and way of life in the not too distant future, some alternative means of urban transport must be found and implemented. Essentially, we need something falling under the heading of “advanced transit.” ATRA by and large seems to view this as meaning PRTⁱ, which indeed it might. Or perhaps not. But something clearly needs to be implemented. There are several requirements that can be posed for the successful introduction of anything in this advanced transit category.

It does not seem that technology per se is that much of an obstacle; in the early years of discussion of PRT and related advanced transit systems, the underlying technology base was a concern. In the intervening decades, however, technology has advanced significantly on nearly all fronts (materials, communications, computer capability, propulsion, etc.). While there are still areas for improvement in technology, the foundation is pretty much there for nearly all configurations one might want to consider. management degrees

Rather, the areas of concern are more related to cost, institutional and exclusivity issues – the same ones that have largely prevented innovative transit concepts from being implemented all along.

The concern about cost can be summarized as follows: WE CAN’T AFFORD IT. Because of the scale of size needed to deal with the required reduction in automobile use, a very large amount of whatever it is will need to be installed. There is nowhere near enough governmental money for this, however. State and local governments are in the midst of severe budgetary problems. The federal government is facing monumental deficits at present, without even beginning to consider funding a massive, countrywide, expansion of transit of any kind. The huge stimulus package the federal government is considering, while being largely targeted to infrastructure, is further targeted to “shovel ready” projects. There is no advanced transit project in the U.S. that can be considered as shovel ready. There probably aren’t any that are even “pencil ready.” The big stimulus won’t be an answer here.

The alternative? Find a way to tap into private funding. This means identifying ways of attracting private capital, in very large amounts, into the transit scene.

There are two components to this strategy:

1. Split the system into those elements provided by the government and those provided by the private sector.


2. Configure the system so that it can be installed piecemeal, in small, bite-sized pieces.

The first of these might follow along the lines of present day roadway traditions. The governments build and maintain the roads, while the private sector owns and operates the vehicles that operate on them. Applied to advanced transit, perhaps the government could supply a standardized, agreed-upon guideway, with stations, while private entities supply the vehicles that run on them. Sort of like a taxi system. The private entities would operate and maintain their respective fleets (there could well be multiple fleets operating on the same guideway network), each with their own storage and maintenance provisions. Compatibility would be required; anybody that could field a fleet that was compatible with the guideway configuration could offer service on it. And, as is frequently the case of new real estate developments today, developers could be required to provide the guideway linkages from their developments into the base system.

This also addresses the issue of exclusivity – a prevalent and persistent criticism of the various advanced transit schemes that have been and are being proposed. Everybody’s system is different, no two systems being proposed can operate on the same infrastructure, as contrasted with roadway and railway systems, which are respectively highly inclusive – any vehicle within the weight and size limits can operate on a road, and any rail vehicle within established dynamic outlines and track gage can operate on standard rail lines, both subject to provision of adequate safety features. This means that an area must choose among mutually incompatible systems options, and be stuck with that in perpetuity (unless they adopt the Jacksonville, FL approach, and haul the old system down and replace it with another).

The second would require a system design concept that could grow over time, as funds become available and as needs and opportunities arise. A drawback of current conventional fixed guideway transit is that it typically comes in big packages, involving huge amounts of upfront planning and design, huge amounts of money, and a huge amount of construction before passengers can begin to be carried. What is needed is an advanced transit concept that can be built in smallish pieces and still be useful, and can be expanded with relative ease.

Because of its integrated network nature, this might be something of a challenge for PRT as it is currently espoused, but it may well be that it could be crafted in a form that fits this requirement. There are alternative concepts that can be considered as “advanced transit” that might fit it equally well, perhaps better.

SO, HOW TO GET STARTED?

Here I suggest is the prospective opportunity for ATRA to take a meaningful role in assisting the nation adapt to the looming challenges associated with the supply of petroleum for, and emission of carbon dioxide from, our current day automobile system. The above suggestions for implementing an advanced transit concept(s), in scale and quantity sufficient to relieve our present reliance on the automobile and simultaneously preserve something akin to the way of life we currently posses, require a widespread agreement on concept and configuration. Such agreement must involve transit agencies, governmental planning and regulatory bodies, and the supplier and construction industries. Somebody has to get the ball rolling, and serve as a catalyst for bringing a critical mass of these various parties together to begin developing agreement on these issues.

ATRA could be the logical entity to fulfill this role. The leadership of ATRA includes persons with a wide range of backgrounds, from institutional to academic to governmental to planning to industrial to operational. The membership likely contains a similarly broad range. Within ATRA’s leadership and membership lies a vast array of intellectual horsepower that could be tapped to initiate and guide this process.

I submit that this is a challenge and goal worthy of ATRA, and if ATRA as a body were to embrace it and proceed, it would be doing the nation a considerable service. It would place the organization into a leadership role in preserving the lifestyle of the nation in the face of ever-growing energy and climate pressures.

To stand aside at this time means the organization may well forfeit leadership to others in what rightly should be its own sphere of expertise, or to simply ignore the chaos that could ensue if the present automobile-based mobility is threatened.

Sincerely,

John Barber
Member, ATRA