Re: The new Transit Pulse

[Dave Petrie]

By ~1960, it was evident that the convenience/flexibility of the auto was promoting low-density development throughout the USA. It was also evident that congestion would eventually engulf our roads and, in particular, our freeway system. Since there was no way of turning back to conventional people-only transit (such being suitable for high-density developments), something had to be done to mitigate the foreseen congestion while retaining the aforementioned features of the personal car.

 

In 1968, the US Congress passed the New Transportation Systems Research Act. By 1972, studies so funded generated the Dual Mode concept: Purpose-built cars for commuting and general urban travel of people required shrinking the car. Since concerns about pollution and limited availability of crude oil for fuel were just beginning, the electric-powered (occupied) microcar was deemed feasible for transport during the major portion of a typical commute. We are now witnessing the start of this evolution. 

 

The Car Bus (there are others) is typical of such a transit system, the dedicated guideway being the present HOV lane; the stations located above the freeway, typically every 5-7 miles.

 

The APM's described in Airfront are useful for transit within CBD's, theme parks, airports, and campuses. But they will never be useful for area-wide applications in the typical American city.

 

Throughout the major part of the 21st Century, DM will eventually become the standard transit system in low-density developments (<10K/sq.mile).

 

DM is a transit system, but you would never know it by what ATRA is interested in. ATRA should either change its name or broaden its charter.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Lawrence Fabian

To: Dave Petrie

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:25 AM

Subject: Re: The new Transit Pulse

I don't understand your comment. What is the context?

LF

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Dave Petrie <DaveP...@comcast.net> wrote:

I see no mention of Dual Mode, classified as a TRANSIT system.

----- Original Message -----

From: Lawrence Fabian

To: Lawrence Fabian

Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 1:32 PM

Subject: The new Transit Pulse

Attached is the latest issue.

For those who haven't responded to Bob Dunning's request for the "new" website, please do so. Click on the link. That's all. It won't say you've successfully hooked up. Bob will be in touch again if you aren't.



--
Lawrence J. Fabian
Trans.21  Boston
www.airfront.us

--
Lawrence J. Fabian
Trans.21  Boston
www.airfront.us

[Kirston Henderson]

on 11/3/08 4:13 PM, Dave Petrie at DaveP...@comcast.net wrote:

> Throughout the major part of the 21st Century, DM will eventually become the
> standard transit system in low-density developments (<10K/sq.mile).
>
> DM is a transit system, but you would never know it by what ATRA is interested
> in. ATRA should either change its name or broaden its charter.

I think that ATRA should change it's name to something like APRT because
it seems obvious that the organization is only interested in PRT. As it has
become obvious that someone like me is entirely out of step with ATRA, I
don't plan to renew my membership.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Bob Dunning]

Hello Guys. 

This is Bob Dunning, the president of ATRA.  Usually I have found it to be best if I keep my personal opinions to myself.  I am a mediator in a diverse and highly contentious group of people.  All we need is for Bob Dunning to be injecting his firmly held opinions into the mix.

Having said that, I have to object to the characterization of ATRA that David Petrie and Kirston Henderson seem to feel.  It is true that we have a number of PRT-only advocates among us.  Conversely, some dualmode people say that PRT is just a special case of dualmode.  I am not one of the PRT-only people, myself, and I know that a poll of the ATRA board and the ATRA Executive Committee would not come up with a majority of PRT-only advocates.  We do not yet know how the future will play out or where the best chance lies for us to realize that future.

I do not think that a majority of the members of this email list are PRT-only fanatics.  Jerry Schneider, one of our founders, created this list and keeps it filled with news from the world of advanced transportation..  He does not favor a PRT-only approach to advanced transportation.  We see a lot of disagreement here and some of the most prominent contributors, such as Kirston are not in the PRT-only category.  At the same time, Kirston writes knowledgeably about PRT and has a PRT product in his stable.  Perhaps we need more people to come forth and let it be known that they are not committed to just one true pathway into the future of advanced transportation? 

Perhaps ATRA could do more to promote DM or to help DM advocates.  ATRA officers and members would both need to better understand what could be done to uniquely improve prospects for Dualmode systems, as opposed to advanced transportation systems in general.  I am not sure what that is.  I am struggling just to open the minds of the public, the planners, and the decision makers, much less to refocus them on just one alternative.

If you think we need to say more on some particular facet of advanced transportation, go the the ATRA wiki and say it.  It won't be me engaging in an edit war with you.  It might be me helping you say it.  I wish that we could capture more of the discussions on this list.
--
Bob Dunning

[Jerry Roane]

Bob

Thank you for this comment.  I was unsure from many comments by ATRA members what the ATRA position on dual mode was.  I have no problem with inventors of a technology to like their baby.  In my presentations to government types I even throw out the idea that we can do PRT or dual mode and that we just provide hardware.  I believe that both can exist on the same set of beams with no problems.  I feel it is a diversion from moving forward to get caught up in how the eventual system will be operated in the marketplace.  The marketplace will determine these things regardless of our guessing today. 

I am glad to know your opinion.

Jerry Roane

[Dennis Manning]

Bob:

 

What is the policy regarding sharing Transit Pulse with non-members? both hard copy and the pdf file. I don't want to break the rules but there are a lot of people here in Fresno that would benefit in learning about PRT activities around the world.

 

Excellent issue I might add.

 

Dennis 

[Bob Dunning]

Dennis,

It would be easier for me to tell you to freely distribute TransitPulse if more people were members of ATRA.  But then more people would already have the issue.  I see the greatest benefit in being lax about distribution.

Perhaps what I need to do is get a grant to publish the Transit Pulse so that we could just freely spread it far and wide. On the other hand, there has to be more than warm fuzzies that benefit ATRA members.

You, Dennis, should certainly give it to people who need to see it as part of your personal program of public education.

Since you are responding to my message about dualmode (below), I propose that we (ATRA) put out a publication about dualmode.  Perhaps some of the people on this email list would like to collaborate on such a project?  We (at ATRA) are all volunteers, so it is going to require someone to come forward lead the project and a number of contributors.  that person will have to be objective about summarizing and presenting all the alternative dualmode opinions and options and also be willing to delve into and relate some of the history.

ATRA will provide the resources to publish, either electronically or on hard copy depending on how the effort shapes up.  At the least, ATRA can create a good distribution list for electronic distribution.  It will also be available for download on the web site.
--
Bob Dunning

[Jerry Roane]

Bob

I can volunteer to help produce an ATRA dual mode description.  Obviously each system is unique in hardware with their IP so the dual mode description would need to be generic for the systems that wish to be included but still explain the variations on the theme.  Some systems blur the lines between dual mode and pure PRT so part of this description should address this point.  The start, I think for this effort would be a complete list of systems who wish to have their hardware called dual mode.  This would define the scope of the effort.  I could just start listing systems that I assume want to be dual mode but it would be better if the owners of the IP ask to be included and have veto power over the depiction of their system in the final version.  Does this sound like a plan? 

Jerry Roane

[Palle R Jensen]

I would like to contribute, but my time is very limited up to the climate summit in December.

 

Kind regards

 

Palle R Jensen

RUF International

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Dunning

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:50 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: The new Transit Pulse

[davep...@comcast.net]

It looks like there may be progress in getting the ATRA charter to match its title. 

If there was ever an effort requiring Critical Mass to solve one of the nations most In Your Face societal problems, Congestion is it.

In December 2007, I decided to join ATRA, submitted a paper (on DM) for the January 2008 Meeting in WDC.

I never received even an acknowledgement of the paper submission. 

I attended the meeting, ~20 ATRA members there. No one but the Transit Pulse Editor talked to me.

At the lunch-time break, I placed a copy of my paper on the conference table in front of each attendee.

As I left- never to return- I felt like a looney running down the church isle shouting God Is Dead.

[Michael Weidler]

Perhaps they all share my opinion regarding DM's congestion reduction capabilities? I do think it was rude to give you such a cold shoulder however. --- On Thu, 7/2/09, davep...@comcast.net <davep...@comcast.net> wrote:

[bob]

I don't know whether to be glad or sad that I was not at the 2008 ATRA
meeting in DC. Actually, I am sad because I know you, Dave. Had I been
there you would have had two people to talk to. I do not recall seeing
your paper submission but I was not involved in the meeting that year
either. Usually, I see what is being presented at the same time as
everyone else. Send your paper to me and I will upload it to the web site.
Or you can register and upload it yourself.

Yeah, I am asking a lot.

I have many excuses for missing 2008. 2007 was an off year for me, what
with an extended convalescence after surgery and the associated
reassessment of what I wanted to do with my life. I have not yet settled
that question, but I am getting out more and taking on more since then.
One of my real concerns is to carve out a stable and prosperous future for
ATRA, my gift to the future of transportation innovation. That very much
involves building ATRA's reputation as the place people go to for objective
ideas about the state of the art.

Something of a challenge since we start from the (non-objective) position
that innovation is good. Less of a challenge since we are all so critical
of all things associated with transportation, including the ideas of our
associates. More of a challenge since we have such a narrow base of
support from our community.

I want everyone inside the tent because then it will be more difficult for
you guys to piss into the tent. Besides, we have a lot of new members
coming in from our corporate memberships and I don't want them turning ATRA
into a suck up trade association. Votes and opinions are necessary.

I will be contacting various of you later today. Probably about 2 AM PDT.
Yes, I am a night owl. Since I live on the west coast of North America, my
virtual location is somewhere in the remote reaches of the northern Pacific
Ocean. I often have email exchanges with Europe in the wee hours that are
almost real time conversations.

I need to follow up this email with an explanation of ATRA demographics,
direction, and (yes) charter. I doubt that any of you will be awake then.
Maybe Luca will be just getting up. Send me your questions if you want to
help direct my soliloquy. You have several hours.
--
Bob Dunning
ATRA Chairman

[Jay Andress]

Dave and Bob,

 

   I attended the ATRA 2008 meeting and I'm sorry Dave we didn't meet. I would have to agree with you though...it was definitely a PRT meeting. I imagine that the Atlanta ATRA was very similar.

   I think someone made a very valid point... either ATRA should change their name or they should embrace more forms of advanced transit (the name ATRA is actually very weak IMO...if you do a search you end up with the American Transmission Association or some other junk). While I am obviously bias in favor of DM...to be very honest it may be better for the organization to actually just go with PRT (and change their name to something appropriate), since the technology seems to be gaining momentum, they have enough paying PRT members and they could be a more effective organization by zeroing in on a single idea versus diluting their message and effectiveness with many different ideas. (If ATRA embraced other forms of transit does it include HSR, MonoRail, DM, DARPA technology?).

   If ATRA decides to be more inclusive then I am happy to contribute to DM information for the ATRA website.

 

                                                                     Jay

--
new contact info: jay.a...@monomobile.com

[Bob Dunning]

It is true that ATRA was formed to support PRT.  It is also true that PRT people are nearly as diverse as dual mode people or maglev people or monorail people.  What PRT and dualmode have in common is that neither is a technology.  They each are an approach to deploying a transportation system that does not depend on a specific technology.   Dualmode does leverage the existing road infrastructure (which opens a whole interesting conversation about standardizing on interfacing vehicles to flat hard supportive surfaces.)  Economides describes PRT as a special subset of Dualmode. 

When Lea+Elliott made the decision to buy an ATRA corporate membership at the (ASCE T&DI) Automated People Mover Conference in Atlanta, about the only points of agreement were that transportation systems should be automated and that innovation is beneficial.  ATRA was only a cooperating organization at the APM meeting.  It was not our baby.

From prior to the day that I joined ATRA, dualmode has always been a part of my vision for advanced transit.  ATRA has changed to accommodate me and would certainly change to accommodate all of you as well.  The truth is that we have not yet seen the full truth or how it all will take shape.  My policy is to not close doors on possibilities.

I know that Jerry Schneider feels very much the same.  I know that Larry Fabian has a flexible outlook on all of this.  Our President, Stan Young, has been a strong participant in the ITS organizations across the U.S.  That takes us even farther afield.  We have all been members for some time now.  The world is remarkably big these days and the dualmode versus prt debate almost seems antiquated.  It will never be settled until both concepts have had their full realization.  I am pretty sure that Dualmode, as a superset of PRT, will be taken for granted at some point, perhaps in certain less urban situations, perhaps everywhere.  All this is assuming that transportation innovation is even possible.  There is some question about that.

Then I hear stories about the meeting in 2008.  Someone needed to crack that discussion open a long time ago, ideally at the meeting itself.  It seems there was more there worth learning about than anyone guessed, including at least two Dualmode advocates.  At the least.  Perhaps someone else was also sitting there stewing.

In 2009, Economides came and presented at the meeting.  No one was locked out of that meeting.  I will be seeking her support for the Dualmode publication(s?).

Please just don't expect me to do it all.  Please reach out to the person next to you.  It is not an accident that we are talking together.  There is far more in common than there is to divide us.  We could start, for instance, by agreeing that we favor automation of transportation systems.  Maybe there are other elements of a greatest common denominator.
--
Bob

[Walter Brewer]

I’ve been scratching my head recently reading messages and arguments pertaining to PRT, Dual Mode, ATRA Charter and function, etc.

So here are my two cents worth:

Perhaps one difficulty is that the "why and what", or function, have been scrambled with the "how".

Thus PRT performs a function well described in the ATRA definition to provide on demand direct transportation with emphasis on individual, or very small familial groups. Dual Mode, e.g. street capable, car ferry, etc, is one example of how this function is performed.

So I see the transportation world, and perhaps ATRA’s function in five parts as follows:

1), PRT as defined principally for urban and some suburban use with performance competitive with autos, but using multiples less energy and land. Also special applications such as office parks, airports, collage campus. Vehicles typically with four seats. As experience and finance determine, it may provide adequate area coverage itself with or without the dual mode feature.

2), GRT. Larger vehicles where numbers traveling to similar locations are significant and vehicles using off line loading, bypass stations, etc can perform significantly more flexibly and rapidly than conventional mass transit. Depending on development density, GRT might be favorable for urban use as well as suburban and some inter-city applications. Common use guideways for PRT might evolve.

3), EFT. Freight/goods movement faster and with more destination flexibility and less energy use than conventional means. Heavy loads would use dedicated guideways. For some lighter loads mixed use with PRT, or GRT might be favorable.

4), AMT: Automated mass transit to improve costs, and energy consumption for applications where demand is high enough to support on schedule transit probably using dedicated guideways. Applications would also occur for inter-city operations.

5), Aid to conventional mass transit. Examples: automation of schedule information, and routing synthesis for travelers. Mixed small vehicle operations.

The market place will sort out which categories best meet demands. It is ATRA’s call regarding the relative emphasis on these activities, Transit Pulse, (new name?), etc.

My gut feeling emphasis for the five categories is: 65%, 15%, 10%, 5%, and 5%, respectively.

Happy Independence Day!

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob Dunning

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, July 03, 2009 5:45 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: ATRA's Charter

It is true that ATRA was formed to support PRT.  It is also true that PRT people are nearly as diverse as dual mode people or maglev people or monorail people.  What PRT and dualmode have in common is that neither is a technology.  They each are an approach to deploying a transportation system that does not depend on a specific technology.   Dualmode does leverage the existing road infrastructure (which opens a whole interesting conversation about standardizing on interfacing vehicles to flat hard supportive surfaces.)  Economides describes PRT as a special subset of Dualmode. 

ETC.

[Ian Ford]

As has been pointed out, ATRA has never decided to be inclusive or
exclusive. It hasn't decided really anything about what it is, which I
think keeps it marginal. Some people seem to see it as an organization
supporting a certain list of technologies, while others see it in more
vague terms. It seems to operate on only two levels: one is that we
collect dues and name officers and do a few other very basic
administrative functions; the other is that certain individuals take the
initiative for significant work like conferences and the newsletter, and
do that work under ATRA's name. Both of those are essential but it is
missing a level of structure that would allow it to build capacity, and
be strategic. As far as I know, the board is not consulted in matters of
direction and there are no committees; these kinds of things would be
that missing structure, in my opinion.

Jay Andress wrote:
> If ATRA decides to be more inclusive then I am happy to contribute

> to DM information for the ATRA website...

--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.246.8490

[Dennis Manning]

Ian and others commenting on ATRA:

The committee comment is only partially correct. Committees have been
formed. Their activity levels depend wholly on volunteers. The time that
volunteers can devote is erratic. The activity levels are rather low for the
most part.

While I was Chairman I put up a trail balloon to see if we could establish a
physical office with paid staff. The aim was to take a leap to being an
organization with more reach and influence. It was decided that we weren't
quite ready for that. Perhaps it's worth reconsidering. So long as we remain
a group of volunteers it's difficult to see how we move beyond how we are
currently operating. We have always had a lot of ideas on various things
ATRA could or should engage in. It always comes back to the challenge of who
will lead and carry out a given project or effort.

The question of going to an all PRT organization has been discussed many
times and we have always decided to remain inclusive of a wide range of
advanced transit technologies.

To paraphrase JFK. "Ask not what ATRA can do for you. Ask what you can do
for ATRA".

Dennis

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ian Ford" <i...@ianford.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 8:32 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: ATRA's Charter


>

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:33 AM 7/4/2009, Walt B wrote:

>The market place will sort out which categories best meet demands.
>It is ATRA's call regarding the relative emphasis on these
>activities, Transit Pulse, (new name?), etc.

Are you referring to the mythical "free market" or the real one, that
is distorted in many ways by a variety of subsidies and various
politically influenced biases?

[Walter Brewer]

Your choice. Could even include stimulus motivated decisions.

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 12:21 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: ATRA's Charter


>

[davep...@comcast.net]

Webster defines Humpty Dumpty as : "-something that once damaged can never be repaired or made operative again".

I suggest that instead, those of us who can distinguish something that will genuinely improve our transportation Quality of Life from poorly-conceived Wheel Spinners, continue to seek backers at State and Federal levels and from private enterprise. 

It has long  bothered me that such as Gates or Allen could well-afford, through one of their benevolent funds, to support demos on a couple-hundred acres of farmland that would make Believers of anyone who watched or rode the various full-scale operational Mock Ups.

The Urban Mobility Initiative that I proposed at the Canadian Tranportation Research Forum (PEI, 2000) and at a Hybrid Car Conference (Microsoft Campus, 2006- sponsored by the Cascadia Project Discovery Institute), was another way to Make It Happen. BTW, that Initiative would include the Best of Everything discussed by this Group; or as seen in Schneiders matrix.

The forthcoming multi-billion Transportation Bill could also well accommodate these projects. But we have got to find the right people to Carry the Ball to the feds. 

[Jack Slade]

I remember that CTRF convention.  I found that if you were not a long-time member, you didn't really get the chance to meet anybody.  This was probably due to the abscence of a "hospitality suite".   If you didn't talk roads, trains or bridges, you were in the bleachers. That was  probably  the same at the ATRA meeting you talked about.   Jack Slade

--- On Sat, 7/4/09, davep...@comcast.net <davep...@comcast.net> wrote:

[davep...@comcast.net]

Interesting. And I agree with your interpretation.

My paper was Head & Shoulders above anything else there: I was certain it would win First Prize (I forget what it was, maybe a trip to Hawaii or $1,000. Smile.)

The winner- having to do with detecting flaws in concrete paving- was an inside academic whose wife had done most of the clerical work for the meeting. Smile, again.

[Bob Dunning]

There is a chicken/egg issue here, just as we see in many other situations in the world.  If ATRA had a strong program that was well managed it would be easier to get the membership, donations, and grants that would allow us to be more active and support such a program with paid staff, which would allow us to get the membership/donations/grants, et cetera.

We are a small organization with support, mostly, from three diverse demographics.  What we all have in common is that we strongly support the possibilities of advanced transportation systems.  Some of us are transportation professionals.  Some of us are transportation academics.  Some of us are (what we call) "enthusiasts".  Of the enthusiasts, a very large percentage are professionals in computer related fields.  If all of us were up to date on our memberships at the same time there might be as many as two or three hundred members.  We are currently running about 130 members.

This is a very small number of people to try to change the world.  Any bus drivers union has more members.  We take damage every time someone on this email list decides that we are not worth supporting.  Nor can I blame people for taking that attitude.  Our members are few and we are constrained by both volunteer time and funding.  

ATRA tends to support the people that are a part of us, that believe in what we are doing, and that make sacrifices to support us.  Is that illogical?  One ATRA board member is strongly anti-PRT and pro-LRT.  I sometimes wonder about their motivation to be a part of us but I do not propose that we eject that person from ATRA.  We had three people sit in on our executive committee meeting in Atlanta that are not formal members of the committee.  One, Dr. Rongfang Liu of the TRB Major Activity Centers committee, is not even an ATRA member.  There is no conspiracy to exclude people from the decision making process at ATRA.  We struggle against vast distances and immense goals with tiny resources.

It is not all bad news.  We have an advertising grant from Google (another computer-related bias at work?).  Our web site is subsidized by Dreamhost (another computer-related organization). We are supported by a fair number of transportation organizations.  In 2006 we had just four or five such organizations.  We now have a dozen or more.  We get $500 from each of them, which means our finances now rest on a tripod where the first two legs are membership fees and organization fees.  Those bring in about $6000 each annually.  If everyone paid their dues every year we could easily double the individual membership portion of that income.

The third leg is donations and grants.  We have the ability to raise about $1000 from the more dedicated general membership, on a week's notice, for a specific important purpose.  We are often able to increase that amount with matching funds from certain individuals, for a specific important purpose.  Please notice the phrase "For a Specific Important Purpose".  When we put Dr. Irving's book on the web site we received $6000 in appreciation from someone that thought it was an important step for the organization.  Naturally I am watching for further similar opportunities.  Anything that allows us to better fulfill our mission in any small way also allows us to do more with the resulting support.

It is a slow spiral upward and it is easily dragged down.  I don't know of any other organization in the world that attempts the same overall unbiased view of the entire realm of transportation innovation.  I stop short of saying that we are the only game in town.  It is probably true that we are the only game in town where you can not only participate, you can make a big proportional difference.  The corporate memberships are priced so that they do not dominate the general membership (the long term goal is numbers rather than a few big corporate overlords).  In general, the support that we receive is a reflection of how hard we try to present the facts without bias.  Our supporters (both individual and corporate) are well educated with a strong interest in science and progress.  They want to make the world a better place in every way.  They do not want to promote technologies that have no founding in fact.

It is important for us to strive to make our web site a consistently good source of information, without grinding creativity and innovation out of existence, and without becoming a biased mouthpiece for every questionable idea that comes along.  I am hoping that we can give you both a voice and a sounding board.  That can only happen with an active community of fully involved practitioners. 

It is a tough balancing act.  Only Jerry Schneider's success with this email list gives me any hope at all. 

The biggest part of our charter is public education.  That is achievable.  The Internet is the tool that will allow us to attempt that.  An active community of knowledgeable contributors to the web site will get us there.  The tools are in place on the web site.  The wiki is in place.  The forums can be set up to match your needs.  We need bloggers who can explain our ideas to ordinary people.  When we are ready, there is an FAQ tool that can direct questions from the public to designated experts and record the Q/A for future reference.

I understand that we are not able to give good support to all of you.  (We do not receive good support from most of you.)  Still, we have a place where the record of your accomplishments can be kept and published for your current benefit and for for the historical record after you are gone (successful or not).  It is my desire that the Advanced Transit Association will continue supporting people like you and recording their achievements, for as long as the current moratorium on transportation innovation continues.
--
Bob Dunning
An Information Systems Professional/Enthusiast who only happens to work for Boeing.
Been Pushing Against this Boulder for a Long Time Now