[kanon]

Here is a monorail system called the Urbanaut. http://www.urbanaut.com/index.htm I think this may be highly automated, so the need for employees is reduced. However, the need for quality construction continues, as it appears the Wolmido Monorail, as of 2014, has been abandoned due to poor construction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolmi_Galaxy_Rail However, there are many other monorails that operate successfully.

It should be noted that the Monorail Society claims that monorails are the transit system most likely to make a profit. http://www.monorails.org They further imply that monorails may lose out in public project consideration because there are not enough special interest profits.

Maybe the modern "highwaymen" wear three-piece suits.

There was a 5.9-mile, $280 million "streetcar" plan proposed in San Antonio, TX. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/08/01/san-antonio-abandons-streetcar-plans-whats-next/ I mention it because I think it is an exorbitant cost. It does seem that a large public project will likely have a highly inflated cost because so many well placed interests need to be bought off. That is the only way to overcome the political situation. Alternately, it would seem the transit authority is a ripe target for corruption and well placed corporate moles.

And, a further revelation: fossil fuel and automobile interests actively fight bus lines. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/01/23/the-koch-brothers-win-nashville-abandons-amp-brt-plans/

[Newfie]

Actually that would be a VERY low cost. Probably does not include vehicles.

Monorails are a specialized form of people mover. They are very complex and very expensive per mile. They work in specialized applications such as an airport people mover. They work best when the track structure is extremely simple. No turnouts or cross overs. They don't do well in snow or ice. Then you need to heat the entire running surface.

Orlando Airport is a good example of a sucessful people mover. Simple, benign environment, captive population, high density. Works well.

[ROCKMAN]

kanon - There was a 5.9-mile, $280 million "streetcar" plan proposed in San Antonio, TX. I mention it because I think it is an exorbitant cost.”. And Houston also has its exorbitantly expensive light rail system. And it has effectively done nothing to lessen the use of the ICE. It merely replaced some of the bus system. A system used most by folks who didn’t own an ICE. Perhaps some cities can make better use of a rail system. But certainly not Houston. First, the rush hour commute load is relatively small to the number of daily person-miles driven here. There’s a huge volume of traffic on the road at all hours. I’m on the highway at off hours and they are always very busy. We already have rush hour commuter buses running their own lanes so expanding rail doesn’t do much to help there. Our light rail system that cost hundreds of $millions only runs short routes in a very small area around the downtown area.

I’m not as familiar with San Antonio traffic flow but I suspect it’s not much different than Houston these days.

[yellowcanoe]

One factor driving up the cost of buses is the need to accommodate people with physical disabilities. You used to have to climb up several steps to get into the bus but now all our buses are designed with low decks. The front, right hand side of the bus may even have the capability to drop even lower at a stop to make it easier for people to get on board. But there is a cost -- with a high deck the wheel wells barely protruded into the passenger space but with a low deck the wheel wells take up a large amount of space which cuts down on the amount of seating.

My impression is that buses don't last as long as they used to. I've seen our local transit authority replacing buses that were really not that old because they were having trouble finding parts for them. The hybrid buses they purchased were also a disappointment -- more expensive to maintain and they did not produce the fuel savings that had been expected.

[kanon]

Rockman: And Houston also has its exorbitantly expensive light rail system.

If you are interested, you could do a quick history on that project and the way it was repeatedly blocked by members of congress. I used to live in Houston and the politics around roads, rails, and transits would make for quite a novel. I suspect the light rail ended up costing several times what it should have cost. The TxDoT was notorious for road construction projects that took forever to complete, yet, when they acquired the rail line along IH-10 west (circa 2000), they had it removed in a matter of months.

[kanon]

Some more bus information. The Federal Transit Administration seems to have regulations covering the purchase of used buses and the rehabilitation of older buses. There are "useful life" categories. http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Useful_Life_of_Buses_Final_Report_4-26-07_rv1.pdf I suspect these useful life expectations govern the funding situations for local transit agencies.

There is some interesting commentary on the political process at http://austinrailnow.com/2014/10/28/who-are-those-guys-real-estate-development-interests-and-austins-urban-rail-boondoggle/ where it is said: " ... evidence is substantial that private business interests — property development interests in particular — have represented a major economic influence swaying the urban rail planning and decisionmaking of City officials." Apparently city officials can be persuaded that locating transit services in a pro-development manner will improve their property tax receipts, which takes precedence over actual transportation needs.

[kanon]

Some information on BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. http://www.fta.dot.gov/12351_4393.html The idea is to use buses instead of rail because the initial costs are less. The famous example is Curitiba, Brazil http://reimaginerpe.org/node/344 The system is heavily used. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curitiba#Public_transport However, even here, there are problems resulting from congestion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rede_Integrada_de_Transporte

At this stage of my research, I have the opinion that bus systems are best seen as a transport machine. All the parts must work, be coherently designed, and kept in good repair. Most of the "urban planning" material I have read lately does not treat mass transportation as a machine at all. There is an optimum capacity and exceeding capacity can really jam the system. There are two basic designs: hub and spoke versus a grid. Which is best depends on local circumstances. The most important trip is the home--work route. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2011/5/12%20jobs%20and%20transit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf It is possible to evaluate bus service based upon the time it takes to get to and from work using the system -- the % jobs in x minutes factor. A grid system may require more frequent service in order to schedule the necessary connections. The Tallahassee, FL experience may be instructive. http://www.governing.com/blogs/view/How-Tallahassee-Overhauled-Its-Transit-System-Overnight.html A hub and spoke system was replaced with a grid system when it was realized (finally) that most trips were no longer downtown oriented. But, the number of routes was reduced.

I have not found anything in use that resembles the bus-and-bike system I suggested earlier. I did see that Lincoln NE plans a 3/4 mile 2-way bike lane for $3.45 M http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/developers-rush-to-build-along-a-protected-bike-lane-in-lincoln-nebraska

While it may seem that public transportation is a mess, I do not believe the highway system is any better. Road infrastructure is deteriorating, but state DoT's continue the pattern of spending more on new roads than on repair of existing roads. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/repair-priorities-2014.pdf In my opinion, the financial challenge of maintaining roads will prove too great for states and local governments. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/02/05/more-money-wont-fix-u-s-infrastructure-if-we-dont-change-how-its-spent/ In Texas, the maintenance crisis is beginning to appear. The 2030 Committee estimated maintenance costs of $3.5 billion per yearhttp://texas2030committee.tamu.edu/documents/final_022609_execsummary.pdf This neglects the $1 B/yr needed to repair roadways due to heavy truck traffic for energy development (fracking). The Texas DoT requested $8.28 B over two years just for maintenance in its 2016-2017 request. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/fin/funding_sources.pdf The state will take money from the "rainy day" fund for roads, which is a pretty big clue.

We will eventually be forced to have public transportation in order to maintain mobility. Fewer than half of major highways generate enough fuel tax revenue to pay for their maintenance, much less the construction costs. http://www.betterinstitutions.com/2015/02/center-for-american-progress-roadway-funding.html Also, the maintenance costs are likely significantly higher than projected. http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/UCTC-FR-2010-01.pdf I have not seen many figures for local and city roads, but it is clear that property and sales taxes pay most costs for these -- not fuel tax.

Clear information on this topic is hard to find. It seems most people who publish anything have their agenda and the "facts" are presented accordingly. At this point, the summary is we have inadequate public transportation and a highway system that is unsustainable.

[Newfie]

What is unsustainable is our population. Reduce it to 20% of today's value and you have tons of transit resources.

[kanon]

I think it is likely the population will be reduced considerably, though I am sure neither you nor I will be the cause. See what happens this fall as a result of the Brazil drought and reduced crop production there. There are other places where drought is reducing agriculture, such as Pakistan. However, I do not think any local transit resources will be freed as a result. My concern is a future of former car drivers with no way to get around, opportunities lost by mal-investment, excessive pollution, etc. Perhaps it will serve them right.

[Newfie]

The plagues cleared out a large portion of the population and the result was a flowering by the survivors. Not that I'm expecting an equivalent flowering, just saying you won't need. Six lane highways if the population were to drop by 50%.

My bigger point is to point out how our knee jerk reaction is to go to a technological solution even when others exist.

Some of our linear systems, the grid and commuter transportation come to mind, need to be designed to meet episodic peak loads. The existing systems could easily handle the loads we have IF they were averaged over a 24 hour period.

So I walk about a mile to work in the morning. There is heavy commuter traffic, cars, buses, cabs. But there are also delivery trucks and garbage trucks blocking the streets. Parking garages sit mostly empty most of the day, but are at a premium for about 10 hours.

Shift the work days so as to broaden and flatten the commute. That would make the buses and rail systems much more efficient, not to mention pleasurable. Move towards a more 24 hour production day. Make deliveries and pick up trash at 1am to 5am. We could also time share office space, doubling the capacity of our downtown infrastructure. Which means we would need to build less new. Fewer new roads and highways and transit systems means less to build and less to maintain. LESS TAXES TO BOOT!

Of course no one will actually do any of this because it is inconvenient and would require a change in life style.

The fact is many of the problems we have we have brought on ourselves. If we could adjust just a little we could do with less making life easier for everyone.

So every time I hear of someone clamor for a new transit solution or other green initiative I immediatly think - there goes someone who does NOT get sustainability.

[kanon]

Of course no one will actually do any of this because it is inconvenient and would require a change in life style.

I think it is more than that. I read somewhere that telecommuting never took off because the managers no longer felt empowered, for example. Could it be that there are status considerations for specific schedules? Are there time bottlenecks analogous to traffic jams i.e. some overriding reason why everyone wants to do certain things at certain times?

I believe the definition of sustainability is a society that improves its environment, in terms of biology, rather than the present deterioration. However, the main consideration of society (including transportation systems), as far as I can tell, is the greater power and glory of the elites. In other words, the main business of the human hierarchy is continuing to be the human hierarchy. At this time it is centered around debt supported by mass consumption. A grand economy that transforms natural resources into garbage. If society were to actually take sustainability seriously most of our economic activities would no longer be relevant.

I don't really agree with your implication that a reduced population would result in more plentiful resources for the ones remaining. It seems to make sense, but is it not more likely that many "resources" would disappear with the people who maintained them?

[Newfie]

I don't really agree with your implication that a reduced population would result in more plentiful resources for the ones remaining. It seems to make sense, but is it not more likely that many "resources" would disappear with the people who maintained them?

Talking transportation.... roads would remain for a long time.

On a bigger picture: woods, streams, animal stocks would all improve (assuming the die off happened quickly, before we cut all the trees to make heat...post peak oil.)

But it is all supposition. We don't know the course of future events. There are many, many possible future scenarios. Unfortunately the vast majority involve much suffering.

[Newfie]

However, the main consideration of society (including transportation systems), as far as I can tell, is the greater power and glory of the elites. In other words, the main business of the human hierarchy is continuing to be the human hierarchy. At this time it is centered around debt supported by mass consumption. A grand economy that transforms natural resources into garbage. If society were to actually take sustainability seriously most of our economic activities would no longer be relevant.

I wanted to break this out because this is something I have been playing with in my mind for a couple of weeks. It is not transportation related.

E. O. Wilson has this idea of us being eusocial animals. Eusocial animals live in colonies and have high degrees of specialization. Then each colony competes against other adjacent colonies. This is as opposed to the more common type of evolution where a male competes with another male (or female/female) to spread their genes. Because bees of a hive are all brothers/sisters, they share the same DNA, then it is still one DNA source competing with another DNA source (queen/queen.) Humans share a LOT of characteristics with eusocial animals. One of the problems with his theory is that eusocial animals all have a single maternal source for their DNA. Like bees that have a queen who makes all the eggs for the hive. Humans don't do that, we break off into sex pairs for reproduction.

HOWEVER, we do seem to have "queens", those among us who we elevate (for no particular good reason) to extreme levels over the rest of us. Others (e.g., Diamond) explain this as a methodology for creating governance and thereby reducing violence among the group. But that does NOT explain the extreme wealth that some folks gain with little contribution to governance. Think of stars, or financial types.

I have been thinking, pondering, that maybe there is some mechanism where these extremely wealthy folks somehow fill the role of the queen bee. I admit it is a bit of a far stretch and I don't see all the connections, yet the eusocial comparisons are compelling. We lack the queen, who is an exalted individual who the entire colony slaves for. We DO have the extremely wealth who the colony slaves for, to make them rich. So while we lack the shared DNA, we have a commonality in the creation of an exalted individual.

the main consideration of society (including transportation systems), as far as I can tell, is the greater power and glory of the elites.

Maybe not the main consideration, but surely one of very high priority and perhaps main. I certainly see your point. My thoughts above is an attempt to work out an explanation. At best I may be on the right track, or I may be far off base.


I apologize for going so far off thread. It is a very esoteric idea.

[kanon]

I apologize for going so far off thread. It is a very esoteric idea.

Why don't you start a new thread? I suggest you describe "eusocial animals" in greater detail. Along these lines, I have thought that the key to getting out of our current prison is to change the qualifications of the guards. Sorry for the hyperbole, but if there is any great insight into social status, belief systems, group behavior, and motivations I would love to see it.

Not to pan my own thread, but bus systems are boring -- something we have to get right so we can ignore it for a while.

[Newfie]

We have been discussing eusocial behaviour in a few threads.

It seems when a topic is given its own thread the trolls swarm it.

Best to have small conversations with interesting folks.

[kanon]

OK, feel free to throw in some off-topic comments.

Now, back to business. Singapore is a crowded place and considered very successful economically. They have a highly rated transit system and have used a program called INSINC to help smooth out usage. http://scsn.stanford.edu/publications/insinc-journeys.pdf

Here’s how it works: customers who complete their journey prior to the start of conventional commute hour (i.e. before 7:45am) ride totally free, or get $0.50 off their fare if they’re done with the system by 8am. In addition, riders earn points for using the system at off-peak times, which they can then use to qualify for cash prizes. Commuters receive a steady flow of personalized feedback about their commuting patterns, and a robust “friends feature” allows commuters to compare their progress and points earnings with their peers.

The results of Singapore’s engagement-based behavioral program (called “INSINC”) to smooth out the transit system’s daily load have been eye-catching — rivaling if not exceeding the performance of traditional congestion management approaches that simply increase the price of fares during peak commuting hours

http://blog.opower.com/2013/09/how-singapores-innovative-approach-to-public-transport-holds-lessons-for-americas-electric-grid/
So general networking issues are somewhat applicable here. This subject area is known as Transit Demand Management in bureaucrat speak. This paper http://www.landofsky.org/pdf/LGS/2013_FBRMPO_TDM_Plan.pdf is a discussion of TDM and, as I have come to expect, is a synthesis of things people have tried successfully that can be adapted into a planning document.

Research has shown that the cost of travel carries tremendous weight in most travelers
mode choice decision. Thus, it’s not surprising that strategies that reduce the real or perceived cost of non SOV [single-occupant vehicle] travel are among the most effective in influencing shifts from driving alone.

For all planners, the "SWOT" acronym is a must-know:

An assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) is a common practice in strategic planning, particularly when there is a sense that an organization or a service such as TDM is in need of an evaluation.

There is a "Strive Not To Drive" http://www.strivenottodrive.org/ effort in this area of North Carolina. This might be considered a terrorist organization here in Texas.

[kanon]

I need to put in some information on possible future innovations. It appears the concept of Integrated Multimodal systems may be the thing of the future. http://www.appropedia.org/Integrated_multimodal_network_planning

The key to a good system is well-organised, legible routes with fast, effective and easy interchanges between services . . . Different routes must be planned to complement each other - not compete (which usually means having a regulatory authority with strategic planning responsibility and authority over the network) . . . Coupled with Public Transport Prioritisation measures and traffic-calming of automobiles, public transport integrated network planning can be an important step towards a more balanced and hopefully environmental sustainable transport system in urban regions.

There is an apparent effort to develop open source computer software to support/implement this idea. http://www.appropedia.org/OSSTIP
Once again, the agenda of the "regulatory authority" appears, but it is not really surprising since transit authorities can be expected to be the major target/supporter of the concept. http://www.govtech.com/e-government/Open-Source-Software-Oregon-Transportation.html Also note the words "integrated network" and the implicit contradiction with the notion of "regulatory authority with strategic planning responsibility" wherein integration becomes a power struggle.

And why the future "innovations" can be confidently predicted, IMHO, will be due to the maintenance crisis described above, progressing fossil fuel problems, and the failures of the BAU political process. For a case study in BAU political transportation development, see http://grist.org/cities/seattles-unbelievable-transportation-megaproject-fustercluck/ in which Seattle's need to deal with an aging infrastructure problem could not be accomplished until a "mega-project" allowing for inclusion of the critical mass of special interests was finally put together. But the record for this type of thing has to be the Boston "big dig." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig which to this day remains a huge financial burden. "The state (Massachusetts) still owes $9.3 billion in principal and interest on the Big Dig and the completed transit commitments" (circa 2012) http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/07/10/true-cost-big-dig-exceeds-billion-with-interest-officials-determine/AtR5AakwfEyORFSeSpBn1K/story.html#comments

[kanon]

I want to add these references to some promotional material concerning urban transportation.

us_transportation_system_can_save_big. The bullet points:

In the United States each year, our cars alone cost us well over $1 trillion, burn about 2 billion barrels of oil, and emit about 1.5 gigatons of carbon dioxide—one quarter of all U.S. emissions. The indirect societal cost of these vehicles, including pollution, lost productivity (sitting in traffic), land use for roads and parking lots, road construction and maintenance, and injuries and fatalities cost us another $2 trillion per year, bringing the annual total to a staggering $3 trillion.

But there is a better way.

Shared . . . Electrified . . . Autonomous . . . Lightweight

The Five Defining Elements of Tomorrow’s Transportation System

Multimodal transportation—it’s about more than just cars
Mobility on Demand (MoD)—from “just in case” to “just in time”
Automated mobility—your robot chauffeur awaits
Purpose-designed vehicles—the right vehicle for the right job
Mobility-friendly cities—urban landscapes should be about people, not cars

A Mobility Revolution is Coming

I hope you are ready.

It seems someone has realized that a self driving bus might make more sense than self-driving cars. After all, what is the point of an "autonomous" car other than the chance you could maybe someday just call it and ask for a ride, or get your place in a 70mph tailgating queue. An autonomous city bus, on the other hand, saves possibly $50/hr, assuming it works reasonably well. self-driving-buses

Google’s greatest shortcoming isn’t its technology, but how it has defined America’s transportation challenge. Our public transportation systems are running near historic highs in ridership, while using technology and business models from the 19th century. We should be upgrading these, not trying to fix America’s auto-dependent suburbs.

Consider buses. These are experiencing a renaissance as cities around the world, from Bogota to Guangzhou to Jakarta, have shown how bus rapid transit can be a faster, cheaper, more flexible and energy efficient way to move large numbers of commuters than either cars or trains. Now what if those buses—like the private automobile “platoons” envisioned by the auto industry—could travel safely only feet apart at top speeds?

And this article agrees. lol-self-driving-cars

But trends are shifting—per the DoT’s cloudy crystal ball, our total travel in miles is not growing, and is, in fact, on a soft downward slope. More and more people are moving to urban centers and dense, close-in suburbs—more than half the global population lives in cities. They aren’t buying cars. Train and bus systems are experiencing record demand. It seems we want Jacobs more than Jetsons: diverse and shared public spaces and services as opposed to decentralized and personal ones.

The great promise of the autonomous car is not the car. The real innovation is in the autonomous bus.

I wonder. Since consumer IT and car makers are into the self-driving car, just who stands to gain from a self-driving bus? Does anyone know of any developments or more on this pod?

[Newfie]

Great idea, self driving bus.

Put some other poor slob outta work and on the unemployment line.

Fix one problem, create two.

[yellowcanoe]

Great idea, self driving bus.

Put some other poor slob outta work and on the unemployment line.

Fix one problem, create two.

Maybe things are different in the US, but the situation here is that bus drivers are paid a salary well beyond what would normally be provided considering the level of skill required to do the job. The reason of course is that transit union strikes are very disruptive so politicians would much rather hand over more money than risk having transit workers go on strike. Self driving buses would be attractive to those who simply want a reliable, cost effective way to get around.

Bus driver salaries are just a small part of what I see as a growing discrepancy between public sector and private sector compensation.