PREFACE

In this report, we suggest a general approach to a solution of the problems of urban transportation. That there is a problem is instantly apparent to anyone who has even contemplated a commute in any of the major cities of the United States. The fact that it is also a major problem in most of the industrial world, only reinforces the urgency.

Today, the freeway system plays a predominant role in urban transportation. However, most would agree that the policy of continued expansion of these vital arteries is rapidly approaching the end of its usefulness. Yet the most commonly expressed “solutions” such as light rail and its more exotic cousin, monorail, have been singularly unsuccessful. They succeed, for the most part, only in transferring people out of busses; they do not reduce freeway traffic

The reason for this failure is straightforward and obvious - people are unwilling to forgo the flexibility and convenience of their private vehicle. Thus any solution, to be successful, must accommodate the strongly held belief that flexibility and convenience are, somehow, inalienable rights.

We believe that there are two approaches that can satisfy these “rights“, and also appear to be viable candidates for both a practical and economic solution. These are dualmode (DM) and personal rapid transit (PRT). We list them separately only because many treat them as distinct, as does much of the literature. We, somewhat emphatically, believe they are not. We believe them to be two variants of the same thing. In a very real way, one can be considered an extension of the other (i.e., a DM system can be a precursor for PRT, or both can operate simultaneously on a single system).

Both operate automatically, without the need of an operator, on a guiding structure called a guideway (not wholly dissimilar to a railway, at least as to function). They can operate simultaneously on the same infrastructure without loss of benefit to either. Dualmode accommodates a vehicle that can continue on and operate on the street, whereas PRT vehicles are confined to the guideway. The principal reason for choosing one over the other involves the population density at the origin and/or destination locales. For instance, the introduction of additional vehicles into Manhattan in New York City could hardly be considered a positive benefit; whereas a street vehicle would be considered essential to completing the journey in sprawling southern California. Accordingly, we have chosen to eschew either term, and entitle this discussion an inclusive Individual Rapid Transit

It should not be inferred that we are the innovators, or original proponents, of any great amount of the material presented here. We are not; although we may have made some progress in terms of control philosophy.

As in many important developments, we formed much of our opinions before being made aware of the work of others. Nevertheless, there are a number of groups, in varying stages of activity and development that are advancing particular solutions with specific choices of hardware. These comprise a dynamic group. So as not to offend any, by omission or otherwise, we will simply refer the reader to a very informative and comprehensive web page maintained by Dr. Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington, Seattle. The URL is:

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

His site maintains a list of known active and partially active workers and/or organizations in this field, together with links to individual sites.

Naturally, we agree with some more than others. However, our purpose here is not to choose one specific system over others. Rather, our purpose is to lay out to a broad audience of elected officials, policy makers, influential private citizens, and the general public the many advantages of a transit approach along these general lines. To the degree practical, we will attempt to avoid discussion of specific hardware and limit the discussion to requirements as viewed from a system standpoint. However, in order to make clear what is required, some consideration of hardware is inevitable. What we hope to accomplish is to provide an overall operating philosophy.

While we advocate no particular design, we are not without our prejudice. This shows up perhaps most clearly in our rather insistent stance on the necessity of the palletted variant of dualmode (i.e., the car-ferry approach). At least for initial installations, we feel the arguments for this are compelling. However, ours is not a universally shared opinion.

In a similar vein is the question of elevated guideways. Certainly guideway traffic must be isolated from other traffic or obstructions, and that in furtherance of this many over/underpasses and other means of separation will be required. Moreover in some instances, circumstances will dictate that extended distances must be elevated. However, this is quite different from requiring, at the outset, that all guideways must be elevated. We believe that, particularly along or adjacent to existing freeways, this isolation can be effected at grade. Although this view could have significant economic consequence, we are practically unique in this belief.

Another somewhat contentious issue, is the view that these systems should be stand-alone, separate from private automobiles and freeways. Indeed, some hold that private automobiles should be done away with altogether. We disagree; we are of the view that these systems must be properly integrated into the whole of the transportation infrastructure. These should be considered as an augmentation of, not a replacement for, freeways - a continuing evolution of our transportation system.

Moreover, in considering cost; we suggest that these should be considered in relation to the cost of freeway, or other construction, to meet the same need - not as some additional burden on the taxpayers. Indeed, it may be possible to finance this with some sort of revenue bonds, obviating additional taxes altogether.

There are undoubtedly numerous other areas of disagreement.

It is not essential that you, the reader, agree with every detail presented here. It is only important that you gain some appreciation of the many advantages provided by this general approach. If you come away with a sense that consideration of these may lead to a practical and economic solution to the problems of urban transit, we will have succeeded.

Finally, to facilitate review by a technically diverse audience, this report is divided into two parts. For those wishing only a cursory discussion sufficient to appreciate the many advantages of this approach, it is only necessary to review Part One (Sections I through III). Those wishing more detail will find this in Part Two.