|
Written by J. Edward Anderson, Ph.D., P. E.
|
|
Friday, 27 February 2009 19:16 |
I have read 31 comments posted in the Pioneer Press in reaction Dr. Andregg’s Editorial, "Fascination with trains costs Minnesota plenty". As can be expected, some were complimentary and some negative. Whenever I have lectured on an issue of public concern, I have found the most useful strategy to be the careful study of the arguments in opposition to the views I had concluded should be advanced, and then adjust my position to take into account reality. I have used this strategy most often while lecturing on either nuclear arms or personal rapid transit (PRT), which I chose to study because through it I envisioned a future urban environment far superior to that which we experience today. Understanding the arguments of the opposition is most certainly a useful strategy in explaining PRT.
Download the whole paper here
In Defense of Innovation in Public Transportation
|
Cheers
I can agree that "surface level rail" is an accurate description of "Light Rail" systems as they are usually constructed.
The issue I was trying to deal, concerning the term "Light Rail", is the misapprehension on the part of the general public that "Light Rail" is a small footprint, low impact, & hence desirable form of rail when the facts are generally in direct opposition to that.
I feel that the phrase I proposed "Low Capacity Rail, sometimes (or change 'sometimes' to 'often')called 'Light Rail' " clarifies that misapprehension without being too cumbersome.
Next, if I may, I'd like to ask about a couple of safety issue scenarios that have occurred to me as I have tried to visualize working PRT systems.
The first scenario involves damage to a guideway support pylon caused by the pylon being struck by a large vehicle like a garbage truck or 18-wheel truck. Have you considered such a scenario? What would be the potential for death or injury to riders? How would harm be minimized?
The second scenario is similar, but involves a foreign object such as a tree branch, etc, falling onto the guideway & presenting a barrier to oncoming cars? Is there any means for the system to detect such obstruction? How would riders be protected from the effects of a collision?
Thanks for your time & consideration of these questions. I have long looked forward to the opportunity to discuss such aspects of system design with someone knowledgeable.
Best Regards.
PS-I have a fair amount of difficulty with the "captcha" here. Not sure why, I'll successfully get to preview & them be told that I failed the entry when
I hit post - other times I will get the error message when I hit preview.
Thanks for your comment. Recently I have been referring to the subject system as "surface-level rail" whereas Subways or Metros have been called "exclusive-guideway rail." I suppose then we can call the former "non-exclusive-guideway rail," which of course is a bit longer. The main point is that the fact that there is a lot of conventional rail in place and many systems are still in planning. Some of the proponents of these systems get very angry when we compare PRT side by side with them. But a reading of the Federal Transit Administration guidelines shows that the Congressional Act that authorizes federal money for such systems requires alternatives analyses and also requires that the promoters show that paying the operating deficit for such systems does not take money away from the bus system. In some cases neither of these requirements was met before the money was released.
WRT "Light" Rail, I think it would be useful to defang the term psychologically by referring to it as "Low Capacity Rail, sometimes called 'Light Rail'". With, perhaps, a second sentence explaining that 'Light Rail' cars are as 'heavy' as 'heavy rail' cars & the only thing 'Light' about them is their passenger-carrying capacity. In this way you tell your audience a great deal about your objection to the system very quickly.
Yet that very city seems to have gone out of its way to ignore PRT. In the face of economic crisis it would rather stick with a technology which is going to require continued subsidies, bringing with that all the attendant issues of subsidised services.
While some may still see this as criticism of light rail it seems rather to me a cry of exasperation at lost opportunity.