[sustran] Re: More on Walton, Cowherd, Hook, Cervero, Dinesh, Obwon.. becak, bajajs, ojek et al

[Britton EcoPlan]

 Re: More on Walton, Cowherd, Hook, Cervero, Dinesh, Obwon.. becak, bajajs,
ojek et al. And more recently monorails, Christine and ' simple light rail'
(which is not quite that simple when you try to get it built, but anyway
):


The ideas that Obwon is floating on monorails as fixes to the problems
which have been receiving our attention under this discussion are fine for
a quick exchange.  However it would be a pity if we were to let the focus
and the level of our exchanges on these important policy issues decline to
a specific technology area or 'fix'.  Moreover, as it happens Obwon, most
of the concepts you are mentioning -- which on the surface have
considerable merit -- have long since been put out there, considered,
tested in a variety of situations, and
 eventually discarded.  It's not
that there is not potential merit in these ideas (or at least some of their
goals), it's just that they have (or are getting) their shot in various
ways and places. To this end, I have prepared this short commentary,
subsequent to which, unless there are any major objections from our
informed majority, I would really like to get our discussions out of the
technology area (interesting as it might be) and back on to the critical
focus of these exchanges, which is, in my view, 'public policy and private
practice'.

That said and before I lurch on to monorails et al, I do want to make sure
that you (Obwon) understand that I concur entirely with the main goals you
mention behind this (as I am sure do all of us here), namely such things as
achieving reductions of CO2 emissions, releasing land presently tied up by
cars and motor vehicles more generally, removing barriers to animal
habitats (and human habitats as well), more safe and convivial space for
pedestrians, lower power and lower speed transport in central areas, etc. 
These are all important, even central issues in transportation policy.  The
trick here, though, is that the way to this future is not paved with
technology per se (though it can have a role), but above all with our
collective ability to shape our cities within the envelope of the
technologies and arrangements that are already out there and well mapped. 
No Deus ex Machina here (sorry about that!).

Just so that you do think that I am ex cathedraing (oops again!), let me
quickly list for you a bunch of names which have been hallmarks of the past
interest and work going all the way back to the salad days of high
technology ambitiousness, which were the late 'sixties: Alweg, Safege,
Atobus, H-Bahn, Kompaktbahn, Urba, Tridim, Orbit, Strada Guidata, Shonan
Monorail, Hitachu-Alweg (a minor variant), Donas 20, Orbit
 and the list
goes on and on.  I myself led four major international surveys of these
systems between 1969 and 1974, and continue to have a close look about
every ten years to be sure that I have neither overlooked anything nor am
about to be surprised by new versions or permutations that might solve all
the old problems that kept them from happening in the first place (which
are many in number and, for the most part it appears to me, quite
intractable).  Our last peek into these systems was a massive six volume
enquiry entitled (for my sins), World People Mover Survey.

The short story on their defects is that they are costly to build and
maintain properly, highly intrusive in urban contexts, take up a lot more
central real estate than you might guess, are ugly as sin (with a few
exceptions), and the more ambitious they get in technology and performance
terms the less able they prove to be to get the job done.  True, as our
ability to handle the huge amounts of data with the speed and security that
is needed to be higher performance out of them (e.g., very tight headways
so you can have smaller capsules and the more frequent service that goes
with them, more versatile switching to permit combined express and local
services and larger service basins) are improving by leaps and bounds
 and
these are now becoming much more interesting (i.e., possible) areas of
enquiry, but at the end of the day the negatives are simply too pervasive
to be ignored.

The so-called 'transportation experts' around the world (of which I guess I
am one) may agree about very little indeed, but we have by and large really
come to quite a firm consensus on monorails. PRT, and anything else that is
stuck up in the air like that.  The solution lies elsewhere.

Does this mean that there are no good elevated systems around (the number
of 'rails' is really not the point)?  Sure there are some rather
interesting ones, of which my favorite happens to be the 100 year old
Wuppertal monorail  (actually it was put into service only in 1901).  The
Wuppertal system is so safe that a few years ago the operator was making
the statement that after all these years there had been only one fatal
accident on the system "and that was the passenger's fault".  And for those
of you who like the way that the Westinghouse system in Miami or the Val
system in Lille look, I can only suggest that you spend some time with
their accounts.  Then there are all those systems in zoos and casinos,
which have their own raison d'être which, I might mention, are a far cry
from the tough world of public transportation.

For anyone with a strong interest in unconventional transportation systems
or monorails, there are places on the Web and elsewhere to turn for copious
background and encouragement.  If you are looking for a largely favorable
view on this whole class of systems (monorails, PRT, GRT, APM, et al,
including the most insipid of words, "people movers") I can suggest for
example the very competent industry newsletter of Larry Fabian at TRANS21
(Lfabian at compuserve.com), the Monorail Initiative in Seattle
(http://www.cullman-net.com/monorail), the comprehensive Web page of
Professor Jerry Schneider (e-mail:jbs at u.washington.edu) at
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/itrans1.htm
 and the list goes on
and on. These people are very enthusiastic, and if you like that sort of
thing you will find them interesting sources for you.

Incidentally, if you don't like people and jobs than you should love these
systems. Our studies revealed that one of the main motives in trying to
push these technologies is that, whatever their shortcomings, they did one
very important job very well; i.e., "save labor".  Indeed, at the end of
the day, you will find that this is usually advanced as the clinching
argument. Which brings us to another and not trivial issue, and that is
should we be using large clumps of public moneys ('cause these things are
never cheap, and they always, always depend on public handouts to get
built) in order to use technology one more time to remove jobs.  Well,
that's a choice, isn't it?

Bottom line: Whether we like it or not (and I for one rather like it,
because I really don't like to go underground to be spirited to some
destination, nor do I feel the need to watch people eat their dinner as I
speed by their apartment window on my handy monorail), our solutions to the
problems of transport in cities lay primarily on the ground.  On the one
hand we have to put a gradual (in places maybe rather more than that)
squeeze on the car.  And this will be achieved  in the final analysis
mainly by the removal of parking, while at the same time orchestrating a
broad band of measure that will reduce the need for motorized movements by
increasing the supply and safety of
.

But this is not the place for this summary of MY views on all this.  Rather
what we are trying to do with these exchanges is deepen this debate, and
see if we can somehow among us reach an 'expert consensus' that we can then
find ways of putting right out front in the policy and public debates on
these matters.

Isn't that why we are here?

With all good wishes,

Eric Britton

_________________________________________________________________
EcoPlan International -- Technology, Economics & Social Systems
Le Frene, 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, F-75006 Paris, France
e-mail: eric.britton at the-commons.org
Main Tel. 331.4441.6340  Fax  331.4441.6341  Data: 331.4441.6342
    24 hour backup phone/fax: 331.4326.1323
    ISDN/videoconferencing/groupwork: 331.4441.6340 (1-4)
    http://www.the-commons.org
        Electronic Libraries available at: EuroFIX: 331 4441.6343
        ftp.the-commons.org/pub/  (then chose your section)
        CompuServe: GO TWEUR (then go to "New Ways to Work")