Lee Teschler's Editorial Comment

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

legaleagle — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:01:15 GMT

My two cents in general on Mass-Transit. I am sure we will always progress to the next affordable fuel what every it might be. But it comes down to population density, planning departments, developers, marketing and progressive technology to make mass-transportation work. If we look back in history we have always had some form of intercity personal vehicle. (horse, cow, etc.) the family SUV -the covered wagon. Getting to the point,countries will always have some form of personal transportation even if mass-transportation is truely designed in to their transporatation network successfully. To successfully design mass-transportation into todays society, out of the box thinking and determination will really play a big part. Focusing on convient transistions between each mode and an extremely secure environment is needed. Patrons shoud never be exposed to the weather progressing to the next form of transportation. A basic simplistic view would be high speed MagLev between major cities linked to a form of above grade or below grade intercity transit, linked to some form of localized enclosed controlled environment moving carpets (conveyors) to business and/or residential sections. I am sure a kios car rental system would play a role at some point in the mix. I am saying, as researchers and engineers we can make or break mass transportation. If we put our heads together we can make mass transportation work successfully. Or we can continue giving it a half hearted attempt and keep it a disappointment to all. It is our job to design these systems affordable, simplistic, maintainable and comfortable. - "Yes" this can be done -- watch

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

JRT256 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:49:06 GMT

bcstractor:
That's right we're running out of fossil fuels and asphalt - so lets build more freeways.

Yes, we are running our of fossil fuels and asphalt. However, it is doubtful that we will ever run out of cement and concrete. The more important point is that cars and trucks do not run on fossil fuels; they run on hydrocarbons. While it is true that we currently produce said hydrocarbons from petroleum (which IS a fossil fuel) this is not the only way to produce hydrocarbons. In the most basic sense, hydrocarbons can be produced from Carbon, Water, and energy by the Fischer-Tropsch process. Methane Hydrogen, and other hydrocarbons can also be used as a feed stock. Methane and hydrocarbons can be produced by anaerobic fermentation and/or pyrolysis of waste material. These are technologies that exist now. Emerging technologies are the production of hydrocarbons by growing Algae with waste Carbon Dioxide, direct electrolysis of water by solar energy, dissociation of water by the heat from nuclear energy, and even the direct removal of Carbon from the air. The point is that running out of fossil fuels does not mean that we will no longer have hydrocarbons available. From what I read, at $60 per barell of petroleum, it is practical to produce hydrocarbons by various synthetic methods.

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

JRT256 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:25:43 GMT

ramboy:

When did SUVs become unsafe? There are significant government-mandated safety devices on every motor vehicle sold in the US. I don't hear anyone complaining about the lack of safety equipment on tractor-trailers, cement mixers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, etc. For those of us with more than 2 children, an undersized economy car doesn't cut it for family outings.

SUVs became safe when they were first produced. This applies to SUVs that are actually trucks with station wagon bodies. The high center of gravity and solid rear axles makes them prone to rollovers. The body on frame construction actually provides less protection to the occupants in a crash with a stationary object or similar weight vehicle. New SUVs, which are commonly called 'crossovers', are really just differently styled stationwagons are are probably just as safe as the cars that they are derived from. While having more than 2 children probably isn't a great idea, you pose a false dichotomy. Your don't have to use an SUV to haul several children. There are midsized stations wagons and minivans that are quite able to do the job.

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

JRT256 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:13:12 GMT

Also consider that a significant percentage of travel by car is due to poor urban planning.

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

nasars — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:09:17 GMT

Its good to find out the ways to come out of fear of fossil fuel scarcity for the future generation.The people desire is to own the special and wants to be different from others,it's fine .But when it comes to automobile sector,each one in home wants their vehicle.Which simply adds a vehicle on road,when population increases we accommodate them in apartments,but here we can't.If you analyse the root cause for the increase in the population of vehicle on road/commuters is to reach the work.It is better to relocate major industries outside the urban areas(atleast newly establishing) and develop township near to that so as to save fossil fuel,valuable time of individuals and to make every ones life happy......

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

ramboy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:00:24 GMT

ricinro:

Mass transit makes sense if you have enough population density. When and as cities grow (some do), congestion reaches a point to where the benefits of having independent transportation is less than the benefit of mass transportation. There are only a few places where this is an issue and China will or is projected to be faced with most of these challenges. Here in the U.S. we have problems with safety and pollution. In order to live farther from our jobs we need to make up time using speed. Since we want our vehicles to multitask, our SUV-truck-road racer is oversized, unsafe, and consumes more energy than needed to get us to our destination 90+% of the time. Since the latest memos from our government suggested that this non-sustainable lifestyle is both a birthright and an addiction that requires doing much more of the same I can understand why most would scoff at change. Fortunately there is great hope and opportunity ($$$) in entrepenuers, progressive leaders and future technologies that are willing to do bold things. Like any engineering project there are always those pessimists and naysayers who get in the way of the optimistic, idealistic "fools" but in the end we get to the moon and all is cool.

When did SUVs become unsafe? There are significant government-mandated safety devices on every motor vehicle sold in the US. I don't hear anyone complaining about the lack of safety equipment on tractor-trailers, cement mixers, dump trucks, garbage trucks, etc. For those of us with more than 2 children, an undersized economy car doesn't cut it for family outings.

Re: Mass Transit's REAL Cost

artb60 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:10:19 GMT

Hummm...kinda goofed the first try, So here goes again.

After reading all of the posts about the real cost of mass transit, I feel obliged to toss in my two cents worth. First of all, there is light rail, and then there is light rail. The calculations for a mono rail system blows the cost projections for more freeway and the light rail away. The mono-rail by in large requires the acquisition of no additional real estate, (It can be built along inter-state medians) presents a smaller foot print, requires less maintance than either the buss, or the light rail system. The electrical demands are less than the light rail. In colder climes where ice abatement is required there will be a bump in requirements. True, unlike the bus, it would be ineffecient to stop at every corner, but when it does the'EL' (seeChicago) thing, then it becomes very attractive. But how do we feed the thing? busses? private cars? (more parking lots) and how do we get around when we get there? Back to the city buss?

Re: Mass Transit's REAL Cost

artb60 — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:44:26 GMT

flapman:

I agree with most of what you say about mass transit being inefficient.

However, I'm not convinced that nuclear generation of electricity is the answer, or that an individual actress in a rather timely movie had much to do with why there aren't more nukes. As to the public fear factor, I think more credit should go to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island than to Jane Fonda.

I suspect the reason the USA stopped building nukes has mainly to do with the economics of construction, operation and waste disposal. The final monetary cost won't be tallied until the radioactive waste transportation and storage issues are solved, if ever.

Re: Mass Transit's REAL Cost

SalemCat — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:42:33 GMT

I believe that Ecology, Economy, and Efficiency would all prosper greatly from inexpensive Electricity. Heating, Transportation, nearly everything can done better with Electricty IF it is cheap.

There are many innovative technolgies that could be employed to generate huge amounts of electricity, some space-based. And of course if Fusion ever becomes a reality all other forms of generating Electricty will become historical curousites. Even so our descendents will look back and wonder why we did not try harder to advance beyond Fossil Fuels more quickly.

But since this Discussion is supposed to focus on Mass Transit, I'll return there.

The distinction between Mass Transit and Private Transit will blur in the next few decades. What will make this possible will be changing the Driver. As computers advance, machines will be driving cars. Soon Manual Driving will actually become illegal. DWI, Traffic Lights, Road Rage, all gone. Each computer-controlled vehicle will do a delicate dance with thousands (or millions) of vehicles in the area, all moving in an efficient pattern to bring each passenger from Point A to Point B. As accidents will be rare, the vehicles will become lighter, with few safety restraints. These deletions from current practice will decrease the costs of these vehicles. And by controlling each Automat centrally, our entire Traffic System becomes far denser. We will be moving far more people, far more quickly, all on the same highways.

Tightly packed "Hives" will be built, holding thousands of vehicles packed door-to-door, bumper-to-bumper. Each morning these Automats will begin to stream out to pick up passengers. The assignments will be dynamic - the Server managing these Automats predicts how many vehicles need to be where and when. When the passenger is ready to leave, they'll make a request via Cell Phone (or what passes for one by then). An Automat passing nearby will be assigned and will arrive in seconds. Homes and Apartments will not require many Parking Spaces. Streets may require none.

There will be Budget Automats, Luxury Automats, Party Automats, Business Automats, Shopping Automats (for the big trip to Costco). You will rent them according to your immediate needs and preferences. And although you may take a Budget Automat TO Costco, you'll hail a Large Automat to bring you and all your stuff BACK.

It is obvious that travel by City Busses and Subways can never compare to the efficiencies of the Automat. These bumbling behemoths will disappear - and good riddance. Is there a Commuter alive that would not relish the privacy and humanity of being in their own space while headed to work ? Ok, for those who love to banter Social Automats will be employed, that hold 4, 6, or more, and these folks can yak it up to their heart's content as they travel.

Automats: our inevitable solution.

Re: Mass Transit's REAL Cost

flapman — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:18:45 GMT

I agree with most of what you say about mass transit being inefficient.

However, I'm not convinced that nuclear generation of electricity is the answer, or that an individual actress in a rather timely movie had much to do with why there aren't more nukes. As to the public fear factor, I think more credit should go to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island than to Jane Fonda.

I suspect the reason the USA stopped building nukes has mainly to do with the economics of construction, operation and waste disposal. The final monetary cost won't be tallied until the radioactive waste transportation and storage issues are solved, if ever.

Mass Transit's REAL Cost

SalemCat — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:47:29 GMT

The City of Seattle has calculated their Busses average 3.8 MPG. A new Volkswagen Diesel Jetta is rated at 38 MPG. That means right off the bat the Bus needs more than 10 Passengers at any time to even equal the impact of 10 Jetta's driving the same route. But it gets worse. The Busses spend a portion of each day transporting the Driver further, all by himself to the Central Depot and back - very wasteful. Private cars begin and end at useful destinations; they never drive useless miles to a Depot with no one inside.

But it gets worse, fast. The Bus requires a massive support team and beaurocracy behind it. Scheduling, Budgeting, Security, Accounting, Management, Union Personnel, Cleaners, Mechanics, there are thousands of people employed in any Public Transit System. And to compare Apples to Apples the enviromental impact of each of these people must be counted. The private driver in his own car incurs none of these costs.

When all is said and done most Public Transit is far more expensive, and far more damaging to the enviroment overall that a private driver in a modest vehicle is. And if the private driver Car Pools the contrast in efficiency skyrockets in favor of the car.

Just think of a City Bus as an enormous, overbuilt HumVee driven by a Chauffeur.

It's a little like debating the Electric Car with a College Student. "Yeah, Electric Cars are kewl, man !" Then ask them where the Electricity COMES FROM. As their face grows blank, inform them that Coal-fired Plants contributed 48.3 percent of all electricty in the USA. So they're not Electric Cars, dude, they're Coal Cars !

Of course the Electric Car would be REAL in France, or in Scandinavia where the vast majority of Electricity is generated by Nuclear Plants. But here is the USA we have Jane Fonda, whose "China Syndrome" movie in 1979 has done more to ensure that our skies would remain polluted with the toxic emmissions of Fossil Fuel than any other person in history.

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

Lee_Teschler — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:22:56 GMT

"Like any engineering project there are always those pessimists and naysayers who get in the way of the optimistic, idealistic "fools" but in the end we get to the moon and all is cool."

We got to the moon, but we basically had an unlimited budget to do it.

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

ricinro — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:59:10 GMT

Mass transit makes sense if you have enough population density. When and as cities grow (some do), congestion reaches a point to where the benefits of having independent transportation is less than the benefit of mass transportation. There are only a few places where this is an issue and China will or is projected to be faced with most of these challenges. Here in the U.S. we have problems with safety and pollution. In order to live farther from our jobs we need to make up time using speed. Since we want our vehicles to multitask, our SUV-truck-road racer is oversized, unsafe, and consumes more energy than needed to get us to our destination 90+% of the time. Since the latest memos from our government suggested that this non-sustainable lifestyle is both a birthright and an addiction that requires doing much more of the same I can understand why most would scoff at change. Fortunately there is great hope and opportunity ($$$) in entrepenuers, progressive leaders and future technologies that are willing to do bold things. Like any engineering project there are always those pessimists and naysayers who get in the way of the optimistic, idealistic "fools" but in the end we get to the moon and all is cool.

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

Lee_Teschler — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:39:26 GMT

It should be noted, Hong Kong = very high population density, very high job density. So not a surprise that mass transit is very convenient there.

Re: Mass-Transit Myths

ramboy — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:01:35 GMT

Many American cities are becoming less dense as people move away. Detroit and Cleveland, for axample, have significantly fewer citizens today compared to the 1950s and 1960s. Another reason why mass transit in the US is not working. Also, what do you do for public transportation if you live in a rural or semi-rural area?