21ST CENTURY TRANSIT

G 4

A NATIONWIDE HIGH-SPEED MONORAIL GRIDFOR THE UNITED STATES

TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE?ECONOMICALLY VIABLE?

ENVIRONMENTALLY DESIRABLE?POLITICALLY ACHIEVABLE?

By Thomas H. Hopkins

11/13/2001

G 4

The US built the railways in the 19th Century,and it built the highways and airways in the 20thCentury. These systems are straining. Now inthe 21st Century, it is time for the US to build afourth nationwide transportation grid, G4. G4will be a guideway system for the high-speedmonorail. It will provide intercity and metrotransportation, a seamless unimodal system, forboth people and freight. But mainly it will be ahigh-speed transit system for people and willoperate at over 250 MPH in intercityapplications, and at 125 MPH in metroapplications. I’m going to suggest a vision thattouches on the technology, economics,environmental aspects, and politics of very high-speed transit.

CONGESTED HIGHWAYS & AIRWAYS.

When I use the term “transit” system, I amreferring to a fixed guideway system whichcarries passengers, be it a city system that stopsevery block, a metro system with stationsseveral miles apart, or a high-speed intercitysystem with stations 50 to 100 miles apart. Twoquestions have been gnawing at me:

• Is there any major city in the world in whichtraffic congestion is not a problem?

I have asked many people this question and, todate, no one has volunteered a single major cityin which congestion is not a problem. I’m surethere are at least several such cities, but therecan’t be many. Traffic congestion appears to bea universal problem, a turn of the century curse.

• Has a congested highway ever beenwidened and then remained uncongested fora significant number of years?

Typical US Highway in 2001

I have received a few answers to this one, e.g.,the Tristate around Chicago. But for everyexample of a successful widening, there must beten unsuccessful ones, where a widenedhighway was almost immediately congested. Itseems that widening a highway contains the

seeds of its own defeat; that it induces moretraffic growth and pretty soon, we are backwhere we began with still more congestion.Widening, widening, and widening roads is notthe solution.

The situation is not much better with the airways,with US air travellers suffering unprecedenteddelays summer 2000, and many now toofrightened to fly. It takes longer to fly fromAtlanta to New York in 2001 than it did in the late1950s. Much more time is spent on the groundgoing through security, waiting for a take-offslot, and circling in the air waiting for a landingslot.

It seems that transportation policy makersalmost despair that they face a massive problemfor which there is no apparent solution. I wouldlike to offer hope. I see a solution and I suggestthat the first half of the 21st Century may be asecond golden age for transit systems. Thereare two components to this second age oftransit:

• High speed intercity systems capable of 250MPH or more and effectively serving citypairs which are up to 600 miles a part.

• High-capacity metro systems, capable ofdelivering 1,000,000 passenger miles(number of passengers times the averagespeed) per hour per direction.

These systems could be connected into anational grid, G4. Perhaps some day cyber-commuting, cyber-commerce and cyber-entertainment will obviate our need to go places,but that appears to be some time off. The maindifference between this second golden age oftransit and the first one is that there will now bean emphasis on speed, very high speed.Instead of ambling along at a pace that wouldonly impress people used to the horse andbuggy at the start of the 20th Century, these newtransit systems must run at 250 MPH or higher,necessary to win riders in the first half of the 21st

Century.

CRITERIA & GOALS.

For this vision to be realised, the US needs asystem which will attract riders, which iseconomically sound, which is environmentallydesirable, and which can win the support ofpolitical leaders and the public. The criteria Isuggest are:

G 4

• Technically Feasible? G4 must attractmany drivers, i.e., a lot of people whopresently drive must give up their cars andstart to ride the transit system. Unless wecan get people out of their cars, we won’trelieve congestion on the roads and hencewon’t improve conditions for those who stillwant or must drive. A conventional transitsystem is slow and so will only divert 5% orless of daily traffic (more during rush hoursin some corridors), thus having minimalimpact on reducing traffic congestion. This isnot nearly enough - we need to divert 25%of daily traffic to significantly reducecongestion. Achieving this is largely atechnical issue, and I will discusstechnologies that are fast. High-speedoperation is necessary for success in bothintercity and metro systems.

• Economically Viable? G4’s economicviability must be sound. A lot of transitsystems are subsidised because they arejust not viable as too few people ride them.An acid test of viability is whether the privatesector will risk its capital to build and operatethe system. A goal would be to have the80% of the capital cost paid for by theprivate sector. I do not think we can wait foror rely on the federal government to pay forour transit systems. So I’m going to discusssome economic issues

• Environmentally Desirable? G4 mustpromote “good growth”. By this, I mean thatfuture developments will be moreconcentrated and in areas which are alreadybuilt-up, and they will promote transit use.“Sprawl” and still more car use are to beavoided. An ambitious goal might be for50% of future developments to be such goodgrowth. So I’m going to touch on someenvironmental issues.

• Politically Achievable? To happen, G4has to win political and popular support.This is a bigger task that winning riders, wehave to win non-riders too. To succeed, atransit system probably needs a powerfulsponsor, a political leader who can win thevotes. A majority in thelegislature is probablyneeded, and in this age ofballot initiatives andreferenda, a majority of thepublic needs to be for thesystem. Finally, I’m going torush in where angels fear to

tread and give an Australian’s view of theUS political scene on transit issues.

I now turn to see if there is any way that a transitsystem could satisfy these criteria and achievethese ambitious goals. I look at the technology,economics, environmental aspects, and politics

TECHNOLOGY

Transit has been in a fifty-year decline. Why?Cars have steadily become more convenient,fast, and affordable and this is an obviousreason. But, I suggest that another reason hasbeen the failures of the transit industry. Thetransit industry has not developed transitsystems that offer the convenience or speed ofthe automobile. Instead, it has relied ontechnology with its roots in the 19th Century - Irefer to conventional rail systems. Alternatively,it has offered an exotic technology that isuneconomic or won’t work. I refer to maglev.

Conventional intercity trains. One componentof G4 would be to expand Amtrak's high-speedservice using the Acela, an Americanisedversion of France's TGV and capable of 150MPH.

TGV

There are three problems with this proposal:

• Amtrak runs its trains on privately-ownedfreight rail tracks. In many places these areat or near capacity and the freightcompanies object to giving priority to

passenger trains so that they canmaintain a schedule. Further,freight tracks are not maintainedto the high levels that arenecessary to run at very highspeeds. Providing a newdedicated right-of-way would beprohibitively expensive.

The problem with con-ventional rail transitsystems is that theyare too slow and theyare not elevated.

G 4

• Conventional trains are too slow - the fastestis the TGV which runs at 186 MPH. To bereally competitive between cities up to 600miles apart, the trains need to operate atover 250 MPH. Conventional traintechnologies are at about their technicallimit, and such speed improvements willcome very slowly and expensively.

• The freight railway tracks are at grade andso there will always be the issue of safety atgrade crossings. By not being elevated,conventional trains will always face safetyissues and speed restrictions. Conventionaltrains are so heavy it would be prohibitivelyexpensive to elevate them throughout theirroute.

Conventional light rail. G4 is both an intercityand metro transit system and so we need toexamine light rail which is a common solution formetro transit systems.

Light Rail

It’s a hassle to take a transit system. First youhave to get to the station, then buy a ticket, thenwait for the train, and finally, when you arrive atthe destination station, you have to get fromthere to where you are actually going. Whywould anyone go through this pain? For mostpeople, it is so much more convenient to taketheir own car. The only reason most peoplewould take a transit system is if there is somevery big advantage that more than offsets thehassle.

The problem with many conventional rail transitsystems is that they are too slow. So not only isa person expected to go through all of the hassleof getting to and from the station, he is expectedto then spend a long time on the vehicle, longerthan if he simply drove himself, even with all thetraffic. The fundamental problem ofconventional rail systems is that they rely ontraction between their steel wheels and the steelrail to accelerate and to brake, so they do soslowly. In Colorado, a light rail system is beingplanned for I-25, connecting Denver metro to the

area south. If it stops at every station, asplanned, then it is projected to run at an averagespeed of just 14 MPH. People will only ride it ifhighway congestion and downtown parkingremain quite impossible.

The second issue with conventional trains is thelow passenger carrying capacity, caused by thelimited emergency braking system. Again, thisrelies on traction between the steel wheels andrails, but the braking forces which can begenerated are limited by the weight of thevehicle. This means that a conventional traincan only stop slowly in an emergency and so therequired headway, the time between trains, islong. Thus a conventional train system hastrains widely spaced and so a low people-carrying capacity. The light rail system inColorado along I-25 is projected to have acapacity equivalent to slightly more than onehighway lane in each direction, but it will movepeople at half the speed of cars on thecongested highway. In the big scheme of things,it will have little impact on reducing congestion.

Conventional rail solutions are not going to cut itin the 21st Century.

High-Speed Monorail.

I think there are three important attributes for a21st Century technology: 1) the ability to run athigh average speeds safely, 2) high passengercarrying capacity, and 3), the ability to follow ahighway right-of-way, i.e., to take tight curves athigh speed.

High-Speed Monorail

There may be a number of solutions that willsatisfy these criteria, but I am very familiar withone, the high-speed monorail. This is thesystem that the Colorado state agency, the

G 4

Colorado Intermountain Fixed GuidewayAuthority (CIFGA) proposed to use from Denverup I-70 to the mountain communities. A similarvehicle was first developed by Dr. Julio Pinto inSpain in the late 1980s. It wraps around theguideway beam and the load is carried by oneset of flangeless wheels and the vehicle isguided by another set of wheels mountedhorizontally to run on the sides of the guidewaybeam. The monorail is propelled by a linearinduction motor; there are several motorsavailable, but the one we proposed was theSeraphim motor developed by Sandia NationalLaboratories. Normal braking is accomplishedby putting the motor in reverse, while theemergency brakes are pneumatic with opposedsurfaces that grip with great force onto the rails,acting rather like the disk brakes on a car. Theguideway is precast concrete and is cast off-siteand shipped in and erected in the early morninghours, minimising disruption during construction.

Cross-Section of High-Speed MonorailBlue: load-bearing wheels, Yellow: guidance wheels, Red:Seraphim motor

The performance of the high-speed monorail isexcellent:

• It is very fast. It can accelerate at themaximum rate at which people arecomfortable, it can run at speeds in excessof 250 MPH, the track can be steeplybanked and so it can handle tight curves athigh speeds, and it can quickly brake to stopat the next station. Even when the monorail

is being used in a metro application withfrequent stops, it can run at higher averagespeeds than automobiles on the highway. Inthe Colorado application, it could movepeople the 100 miles from Denver to themountains in one hour, much less than thetwo hours it takes to drive in good conditionsor three hours in congested conditions.

• It is safe, even at very high speeds. At 250MPH, the amount of kinetic energy isenormous and so safety is a dominantconsideration. The monorail wraps aroundthe guideway, it has a very low center ofgravity (just 28” above the guidance wheels),its wheels are lightly loaded and flangelessso there is little chance that a wheel can bedamaged and shatter, and the whole vehicleis mechanically entrapped on the beam,preventing derailments. Because themonorail is elevated, the issue of at-gradehighway crossings is moot.

• It has high people carrying capacity.Because its emergency brakes can stop thevehicle in much less distance than theemergency brakes on any conventionaltrain, the monorail can run at tight headwayseven when operating at high speeds. Thesystem could run monorails carrying 1,000passengers at speeds of 125 MPH withheadways as little as three minutes. Thisgives a capacity of 20,000 people per hourper direction. Even more impressive, it cando this while averaging over 50 MPH in ametro application with frequent stops andstarts, giving the ability to deliver 1,000,000passenger miles per hour per direction(20,000 pphpd times 50 MPH). I don’t knowof any other system that comes even closeto moving so many people at such a highaverage speed.

• It can follow a highway right-of-way becauseof its ability to take tight curves at highspeed. In this age of high densitymetropolitan areas, acquiring new right-of-way is not often an option.

Will it attract many passengers? The ColoradoDepartment of Transportation tested this for theproposed 168 mile system connecting metroDenver to the mountain communities (Vail, etc.).They interviewed 4,167 people who had justdriven i-70 and found that an incredible 63%said they would consider riding the high-speedmonorail instead of driving. CDOT tested thevarious markets and found that many drivers"certainly would" or "probably would" ride the

G 4

monorail instead of driving. Onlya small number of people wouldeven consider riding a bus orvan.

The Zone. There is a zonewithin which a transit systemmust operate to be attractive. If the system istoo slow, few will ride it. If it is so fast that it isuncomfortable, few will ride it.

Comfort Zone

The above diagram plots speed against distancefor vehicles running from Town A to Town B.Most conventional rail systems operate belowthe zone, are too slow, and have little chance ofever being made fast enough to get into thezone where they would attract passengers. Thehigh-speed monorail is so fast, it could operateabove the zone. Fortunately, it is an easy matterto slow the high-speed monorail so that itoperates within allowable lateral accelerationrates, etc. and is comfortable for passengers. Itoperates at the top of the zone.

People’s comfort level changes with time. Whilepeople at the start of the 20th Century were notcomfortable with fast cars (early cars had to bepreceded by a man ringing a bell), now peopleroutinely speed down the highway at 75 MPH.As people become more accustomed to the highperformance of the monorail and comfortstandards are relaxed, the high-speed monorailcould operate at faster and faster speeds. Thehigh-speed monorail is a technology that couldbe good for the entire 21st Century.

Maglev. The transit industry is developinganother technology to meet the needs of the 21st

Century, maglev. Unfortunately, maglev issucking up money and has been dragging us ina direction that is a dead-end. Maglev, in whichthe vehicle is magnetically levitated above itstrack, was heralded in the 1970s as atechnology that would allow vehicles to floatrapidly down a guideway without any of therolling friction or safety problems that wheels

then presented. The US hasspent millions on this technology,and the Japanese and Germanshave spent billions more. All tono avail; we still do not have aviable revenue-generating systemanywhere in the world and in

early 2000, the German government withdrew itssupport for a Transrapid demonstration projectto be built from Hamburg to Berlin. It was noteconomic and it had lost political support.

Unfortunately, the US is flirting with maglev andis now considering spending close to one billiondollars to build a demonstration Transrapidsystem, the German maglev technology, ineither Washington/Baltimore, or Pittsburgh.

In the paper, Maglift Monorail, which Icoauthored with Dr. Pinto, Spain, and Mr. Kelleyand Drs. Marder and Turman of Sandia NationalLaboratories, we compared the GermanTransrapid TR07 maglev with the high-speedmonorail. We found that not only does maglevcost more to build than the high-speed monorail(about double), but it is more technicallycomplex, costs more to maintain, and its energycosts per passenger mile are 66% greater.

Transrapid TR07

For a new technology, such as magneticsuspensions, to take over from a well-established technology such as wheeledsuspensions, there has to be a compellingadvantage, or it is just not going to happen.What is the advantage of magneticsuspensions? There are none. The high-speedmonorail is projected to be as fast, safe, quiet,and comfortable. More importantly, it is muchless expensive to build, run, and maintain, it cantake tighter curves allowing it to follow a highwayright-of-way, uses an off-the-shelf decentralisedcontrol package, and allows tighter headways

The high-speed mono-rail is a technology thatcould be good for theentire 21st Century.

G 4

and longer trainsets giving greater passenger-carrying capacity.

The fundamental assumption of maglevproponents, that wheels are bad, is wrong.Wheels are a proven technology and newflangeless designs with high performancebearings carrying light-weight vehicles makestheir safety and performance excellent.

Maglev does not have any compellingadvantages. In fact, it has several compellingdisadvantages. The economic proposition ofmaglev is to spend billions extra up front in orderto pay millions more each year in operatingcosts. It will never fly!

ECONOMICS

The fundamental problem withtransportation in the US is thatthere are too many drivers andtoo few riders. Why are peopleso keen on driving their cars,and so reluctant to ride transitsystems? There are at leasttwo reasons:

• Driving is so convenient.With a car, you can leavefrom your own home precisely when youwant and you can drive to precisely whereyou want to go. Compared with this, using atransit system is a hassle. Even with theincreasing congestion and difficulty in findinga parking space, driving is still moreconvenient than riding for large segments ofthe population.

• Riding costs out-of-pocket money whiledriving is “free”. People typically pay about$300 per month for their car, and another$200 for gas, and for this they have wheelsfor the month. Most people think of thesecar costs as fixed costs and few seem tothink of the incremental cost of the gasactually used or the wear and tear whenconsidering a trip. On the other hand, if youride, you have to pay money out of yourpocket and that's a deterrent.

FAT Corridors. The vagaries of the politicalprocess suggest that, to become widespreadand successful, high-speed transit systems mustbecome the business of the private sector ratherthan the government.

A solution which may help reverse this drive Vsride preference, and place the private sector intoa leading role, is FAT corridors (Free transit AndTolled highway). The FAT corridor concept issimple – charge anyone who drives a toll, anduse the toll money to make riding the transitsystem down the same corridor free. I believethat to really change the dynamic of drive Vsride, the US needs to do something this drastic.Congestion pricing is just nibbling at the problemand just better allocates use of the highway, butit does not increase its raw capacity andcongestion won’t be solved until raw corridorcapacity is increased (and growth of demandstopped).

The private sector would play the leading role asthe transit system down a corridor would befinanced with FAT bonds purchased by theprivate sector and serviced by the tolls on the

highway.

The FAT corridor concept wasdiscussed informally with severalemployees of the Federal HighwayAdministration. Under current law,Federal highway funds at thediscretion of a state could be usedto support FAT transit capitalconstruction costs in a corridor, butnot transit operating costs. Thatwould require a change in the law.

There are also likely limitations under state lawrelating to the setting of tolls.

Typical Congested HighwayEight Lanes: Capacity 20,240 People/Hour

FAT CorridorEight Lanes & Double Guideway: Capacity 60,240People/Hour

If FAT corridors were used, the results would bedramatic:

• Ridership would be up and driving would bedown. Many people would be attracted tothe transit system if it cost nothing to ride,and especially if it delivers you there in less

The FAT corridorconcept is simple –charge anyone whodrives a toll, and usethe toll money to makeriding the transitsystem down the samecorridor free.

G 4

time than it takes to drive on the tolledhighway.

• FAT corridors would not require agovernment operating subsidy as the peopleusing the corridor are paying for the freetransit by paying the toll on the highway.

The capacity of the corridor would besignificantly increased, solving the problem formany years to come. This is no temporary fix.

For-Profit Operator. Transit systems have thereputation of being inefficient and unprofitable.During the Colorado legislative hearings for thehigh-speed monorail, one legislator stated thatthere are no profitable transit systems anywherein the world – they all require governmentsubsidies. This is not true; there are manyprofitable transit systems. The nationalJapanese and British train systems have beenbroken into smaller for-profit operations andmany of these systems are now profitable. Thekey seems to be to have for-profit companies asthe operators.

ENVIRONMENT

The energy consumed to move people aroundon a transit system is clearly less than withautomobiles. We estimated that the monorailwhen it is just half full of passengers uses lessthan 1/7th the energy per mile per person usedby automobiles.

Consider a City-Pair connected by a majorhighway and where not much green-fielddevelopment has yet occurred. The issue iswhat pattern of growth is going to occur in thecoming years?

Often it is decentralised growth with green-fielddevelopments in the open spaces between thecities. This is sprawl and results in congestedhighways which are being forever widened. It isinteresting that the Texas TransportationInstitute concluded that neither populationgrowth nor too few roads are to blame for trafficcongestion. Their analysis finds that trafficcongestion is getting worse because of sprawl.It’s not the number of people that is the problem,

it’s the increased average driving distance. Atypical decentralised growth pattern in whichgreen-space is developed early and the spacebetween cities is gradually filled with low densitydevelopment, similar to what happened around

Los Angeles, could be represented by thefollowing diagram.

The problem with this approach is that it front-loads the infrastructure and service expenses,and increases the average distance that peopletravel, causing highway congestion.

Conventional Growth

ADRs. A typical scene in a metro area is acongested multi-lane highway running down acanyon of mid-density developments.

The government has an asset in the airdevelopment rights (ADR) over the majortransportation corridors, and these could besold. The idea is to cover sections of thehighway and to build on top a transit station plusa high-density, multi-function development withhomes, offices and shops. There are severalpositive effects:

• The government benefits from the sale of anotherwise unused asset, and the proceedscould be used to help pay for the transitsystem which runs down the corridor.

• High-density development takes placearound the transit stations and so the growththat results would not increase highwaycongestion.

G 4

• The development is within easy reach ofexisting infrastructure, and so would be lessexpensive to support than green-fielddevelopment.

• Noise from the highway is reduced as it iscovered, and surrounding neighbourhoodsbecome quieter.

Typical Highway with Air Space

FAT Corridor & ADR Development

Good Growth. ADR developments combinedwith FAT corridors would be powerful weaponsto promote “good growth”, meaning growthwhich is high density and within the confines of ametropolitan area, not decentralised growth inthe green space between cities. The toll boothsfor the highway could be placed on the perimeterof the area where densedevelopment is being promotedso that people living andtravelling within this area pay notolls, while those who live ingreen-field developments outsidepay a toll for using the highways.This growth is preferable as itcosts much less in services and infrastructure tosupport, and it generates less congestion astravel distances are shorter. Such a growthpattern could be represented as follows:

FAT & ADR Growth

The environmental advantages of this approachare many. Automobile use with its noise andexhaust pollution is reduced, less energy is usedto move people around, the highways are lesscongested making driving a more pleasantexperience, development is less expensive as itis more centralised (and dense) and can besupported with incremental additions to existinginfrastructure.

The beauty of this approach is that it sets upeconomic incentives to control sprawl. Peopleact on their own self-interest, and that happensto coincide with actions that are good for theenvironment. This may be preferable to relyingon constitutional amendments to control growth(as Colorado attempted in a ballot initiative thatwas defeated in November 2000) or onregulation. These political approaches generateconsiderable opposition and there are oftenunintended consequences.

POLITICS

I’m an Australian who isconsidered an “alien” in thiscountry, so I hope my commentson the US political scene with

regard to transit will be seen as non-partisan. Itmay not be “politically correct” to discuss thepolitics of transit, but I don’t think we’ll makemuch progress until we recognise where people

ADR developmentscombined with FATcorridors would bepowerful weapons topromote “good growth”

G 4

are coming from and attempt to address theirissues.

Sponsor. A major transportation project needsa powerful political sponsor, and it does notneed a powerful opponent. Colorado hasDenver International Airport because Denver’sformer mayor, Frederico Peña, stepped up andled us there, despite all the nay-sayers. Thehigh-speed monorail for Colorado’s I-70 is not onthe ballot this November because GovernorOwens managed to derail it at the last minute inthe Colorado legislature. You’dthink that a major political leaderwould step forward and sponsora high-speed monorail project - itoffers the potential of a “signatureproject”, one which could makethe reputation of the sponsor.

FRA. The Federal RailroadAdministration has charge of thebillion dollar high-speed maglev programapproved in TEA-21. I wrote to the FRA in May,1999, and asked if the high-speed monorailmight qualify as a form of “maglev” for thepurposes of their program. The high-speedmonorail never lifts off the guideway (therebyavoiding a host of technical problems), but thelinear induction motor could be positioned togive magnetic lift and guidance as well asmagnetic propulsion. Fortunately the FRAagreed, and they consider the monorail a form ofmaglev for the purpose of their program.

Democrats & Republicans. On the Coloradohigh-speed monorail project, three quarters ofthe Democrats in the Senate voted for theproject, but two thirds of the Republicans votedagainst. This breakdown may be fairly typical ofDemocrats and Republicans in general.Democrats tend to be visionary andenvironmentally sensitive, so they are for transit.Notwithstanding the above statistics, someRepublicans are strongly pro-transit; Colorado’sstate agency, CIFGA, was established by aRepublican legislature and some of its leadingmembers are conservative Republicans.However, to have a new age of transit in the US,it will be necessary to win the votes of moreRepublicans. Why are the majority ofRepublicans against transit? I don’t think transitis considered a “socialist plot” to subsidise poorpeople or to restrict where you can travel. I thinkthere are three very real reasons.

• Pragmatism. Republicans don’t like thingsthat don’t work! And many transit systemsdon’t work – few people ride them and so

they have minimal impact on reducingcongestion. Thank the Republicans that weare not saddled with lots of conventionaltransit systems that few people ride, ormaglev systems which are uneconomic.The high-speed monorail is an integration ofexisting technologies and so its developmentis not a high risk proposition.

• Small government. Republicans don’t likebig government solutions and so much ofmass transit smacks of big government.

However, Republicans may likethe idea of FAT corridors, sellingADRs, and for-profit operators. Inthese, the private sector takes thelead and the government plays afacilitating role. Now that thefederal budget is in surplus as faras anyone can see, new issues ofgovernment bonds will dry up.Perhaps the AAA bonds of the

future will be FAT bonds, serviced byhighway tolls, and guaranteed, partially atleast, by the federal government. It wouldtake hundreds of billions of dollars to buildall the systems needed. Issuing and tradingFAT bonds could become an importantfinancial market.

• Corporate constituency. Republicans tendto represent corporate interests andcorporations want to preserve theirbusiness, defend the status quo. A bird inthe hand is actually worth ten in the bush.On the Colorado project, we were out-lobbied by the highway and bridge builders,the Asphalt Institute, and the automobile,and trucking interests… everyone who sawthis transit project as a lost highway project.Our consortium, made up of oneinternational contractor, one internationalengineering consultant, and oneinternational bank felt that the project hadtoo much “blue sky” (it had to pass twostatewide votes) to warrant serious moneybeing spent on lobbying. I think someRepublican support will not materialise untilthe emergence of a powerful group ofcompanies which are benefiting from transitprojects and which exert political influence.This is a chicken and egg problem. Thechallenge is to break through, perhaps bygenerating an exciting and big vision thatcorporate America will buy into.

Considering that the high-speed monorail willattract many passengers, that its development isnot high risk, and considering the leading role

Republicans don’t likethings that don’t work!And many transit sys-tems don’t work – theyhave minimal impact onreducing congestion.

G 4

envisaged for the private sector, it may bepossible to win the support of a majority ofRepublicans in the fairly short term. It’s time forRepublicans to reconsider transit and take a lookat the high-speed monorail.

People Vote for Monorails.

Public. The good news in all of this is thepopularity of the high-speed monorail.Whenever a monorail has been put on a ballotalongside other transit solutions, the monorailhas always won easily. People love monorails.In Colorado, the high-speed monorail proposedfor I-70 enjoyed lots of positive press and wasvery popular with the people. However, itrecently (November 6, 2001) lost a statewideballot for $50 million for its development. Inearly September it enjoyed favorable poll ratingsof 83%, but following the terrorist bombing, war,Antrax scare, and rapidly worsening economy, itdropped rapidly in the polls and was defeated,along with all other money requests on the ballotthat year in Colorado. I hope this was anaberration

I mentioned earlier that I really don’t think we’llsolve the problem until we toll car use and havefree transit, i.e., FAT corridors. People may votefor the high-speed monorail, but will peopleactually vote to toll themselves by implementingFAT corridors? I can give three reasons whythey might:

• Less congestion. People who want or whomust drive will be pleased to get those otherpeople off the highway so that they have aclear shot on an uncongested highway.Happy driving!

• Free and attractive alternative. Many peoplewill be attracted to a free and fast monorail.I can ride the monorail for nothing and getthere in less time than I could driving. Notolls would be charged until the free monorailwas in place.

• Many voters won’t pay the toll. By locatingthe toll booths on the perimeter of the metroarea, the many voters who live within themetro area would rarely pay the toll. Itwould be paid by interstate travellers,truckers, and people who insist on living inlow-density green-field developmentsbetween the cities. But not by me!

There is a powerful reason why people may notvote for transit systems, despite the popularity ofthe high-speed monorail. If it appears that suchtransit systems could become widely adopted,the lobbying against them by the automobileindustry, the road and bridge builders, theasphalt manufacturers, the truckers, the airlines,and the oil and gas producers could becomeintense. The car-highway-oil-airline complex ismuch more powerful than the military-industrialcomplex (that President Eisenhower warnedagainst) ever was. It is how many Americansearn their living, and they might fear that thatliving would be jeopardised.

I think that people would vote for the high-speedmonorail, but would not vote for FAT tolls tofinance its widespread introduction. At least, notyet. Not until congestion is so awful that peoplecry, “Enough… we have to expedite building thehigh-speed monorail even if that means payingtolls!” The pain level is not yet high enough. Weestimated that the hours of congestion on I-70 inColorado would increase six- to eight-fold so thatthe highway would be congested all day andmost days during the summer and winterseasons within 20 years. The DOE hasestimated that the hours spent in trafficcongestion is going to triple in the coming years.We’re talking real pain, and then FAT corridorswill be a real possibility. This timing could workout quite well; it will take ten years for the firsthigh-speed monorail system to be builtsomewhere and proven attractive, by which timeFAT tolls might pass and could be used tofinance other systems elsewhere.

G 4

G 4

The US has three transportationgrids:

• The railways. We have anextensive grid of freightrailways that can ship heavyfreight long distances. This grid was built inthe 19th Century. Many passenger trainsrunning on the freight grid would be ascheduling nightmare, and there is no waythat these trains could run on existing tracksat very high speeds, 250 MPH. The topheavy design of conventional trains and theat-grade crossings would not permit it. TheFrench TGV, which runs at up to 186 MPH,uses its own dedicated tracks which arecontinually worked on to keep perfectalignment.

• The highways. we have a 46,000 mile gridof interstate highways. These are excellentfor moving people over short to moderatedistances, and for moving freight short tolong distances. This grid was built in the 20th

Century. This grid is just about at capacityand hours of congestion are increasingrapidly.

• The airways. You have a network of airportsthat are excellent for moving passengersover great distances. It's also excellent forlight-weight or time-sensitive freight. Thisgrid was built in the 20th Century. This gridis just about at capacity; summer 2000showed that.

It is time for the US to build a fourth grid, G4, anational guideway grid for the high-speedmonorail. G4 would serve double duty, forintercity systems, and for metro commutersystems in each of the cities on the nationalguideway grid. It would be excellent fortransporting people short to moderate distances,and it would be excellent for transporting freightover moderate distances, especially light-weightand time-sensitive freight. G4 would be likebuilding another interstate highway system,except that its capacity would be much greater,equivalent to eight or more highway lanes, andthe vehicles would run at much higher speeds.It would be the 21st Century grid and it wouldhave capacity sufficient for most of the 21st

Century.

Intermodalism is necessary for convenience, sopassengers can get from their home to thestation, and then from the station to their

destination. G4 stations would behubs for monorails, buses, cars,taxis, and bicycles.

As good as intermodalism is,unimodalism is better. Animportant part of G4 is ensuringthat it serves both metro systemsand intercity systems. The

concept is for a person to leave one city on itsmetro system, move seamlessly onto theintercity system, and then seamlessly again ontothe metro system in the next city. Quitepossibly, the person would never changemonorails

G4 would share the interstate right-of-way.

G4 would carry freight: small packages (which isproving a tremendous revenue source forAmtrak), roll-on and roll-off aircraft containers,and there would be freight monorails carryingstandard 20’ ISO containers. Transit monorailsand freight monorails would be completelycompatible and would run on the sameguideway.

G4 would evolve. High-speed monorail systemswould be developed in this region and that, andthen would be gradually interconnected into G4.G4 would run down the same rights-of-way thatthe interstate highway system uses.

G4 may be exciting and big enough to overcomethe natural opposition of companies seeking topreserve the status quo, the highway and bridgebuilders, and the automobile industry. Co-optingthe support of these companies may benecessary to avoid a still-birth for G4. There willbe tremendous business opportunities and theycould all participate. Vehicle manufacturers(automobile andaircraft), bridge builders, engineeringcontractors, concrete producers, and consultingengineers have obvious opportunities.

It is time for the US tobuild a fourth grid, G4,a national guidewaygrid for the high-speedmonorail.

G 4

It is interesting to think what President GeorgeW. Bush's interest in promoting G4 might be. Ithink it depends if he is a visionary like PresidentEisenhower, credited with the interstate highwaysystem, or like his father and dismissive of this"vision thing".

Capital Cost. We estimated that the high-speedmonorail running up I-70 in Colorado would cost$22 million/mile, including the cost of theguideway, vehicles, specialstructures such as tunnels,systems, stations, andcontingencies. This system wasexpensive as it twisted andturned up the narrow mountaincanyons, and we had to budgetfor a 1.1 mile double shaft tunnel.Most other systems would costless.

The interstate system is 46,000miles long, 71% is rural and 29%is urban. A goal would be tobuild a 30,000 mile system, and so a quick costestimate is:

• $15 million/mile along 21,300 miles of ruralinterstate. $320 billion.

• $25 million/mile along 8,700 miles of urbaninterstate (more expensive because ofspecial structures, utility relocation, etc.).$220 billion.

So for $540 billion, all-inclusive, the US couldbuild G4 running along 30,000 miles of theinterstate system, adequate for the first half ofthe 21st Century. $110 billion could be financedby the federal government, and $410 billion bythe private sector with FAT bonds serviced byhighway tolls.

G4 would be an attractive proposition: capacityequivalent to eight or more highway lanes, withvehicles travelling much faster than on theinterstate, and paid for mostly by highway tolls.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

Despite that I have proposed that the privatesector take the lead in paying for, building, andrunning individual high-speed monorail systems,the federal government must take the lead indeveloping such a national grid. Transit is seenas a risky business by the private sector – itrequires too much government and public

approval, and governments and the public arefickle. The government needs to take the lead.

Developers of individual transit systems will befocusing on their own system and not thinkingabout a national grid, so their respectivesystems could be incompatible. This happenedin the early days in Australia: the state ofQueensland used a 3’6” gauge for its railway,New South Wales used standard 4’ 8½”, and

Victoria used 5’ 3”, so you cannotride one train down the east coastof Australia.

For these reasons thegovernment needs to play a roleas standards setter, catalyst, andfacilitator, by:

• paying for the initialdevelopment of the high-speedmonorail to show that it is feasible(the private sector would step inlater and develop many vehicles),

• developing national standards for theguideway and vehicles so that all the variousregional systems could one day beconnected into a national system,

• paying for the initial studies to confirm theworthiness of individual transit projects,

• changing the law (federal and possibly state)so that highway tolls can be used toconstruct and operate transit systems in thesame corridor,

• guaranteeing the FAT bonds, at leastpartially, that the private sector will buy topay for these compliant systems, and

• paying some percentage, 20% perhaps, ofthose transit projects which comply to thenational standards.

A VISION

So in my 21st Century crystal ball, I see:

• Many regional high-speed monorail systems,each made up of several metro systemsconnected by intercity systems,

• FAT corridors with lots of people riding thefree monorail and getting there in less timethan the toll-paying drivers,

G4 would be anattractive proposition:capacity equivalent toten or more highwaylanes, with vehiclestravelling much fasterthan on the interstate,and paid for mostly byhighway tolls.

G 4

• the private sector heading up the entireeffort, paying for the transit system with FATtolls, running the system for profit, withhappy capitalists dealing in hundreds ofbillions of dollars of FAT bonds, and

• high-density ADR developments every tenmiles or so over the major highways withinthe metro areas,

• fewer green-fielddevelopments as peoplewon’t want to pay the tolls,and less highway congestionas fewer people will bedriving long distances,

• happy politicians who nolonger have to pay frompublic coffers for disruptive and ineffectivehighway widenings because there is noalternative, and who no longer have to railagainst green-field developments. TheDemocrats will love the fresh air and greenspaces, and the Republicans will love theprivate sector solution and corporatesupport, and

• G4, a national guideway grid connecting allof the regional high-speed monorailsystems.

CRITERIA REVISITED & CONCLUSION.

I began by laying out several criteria to judgewhat could be described as a successful transitstrategy for the 21st Century:

• Technically Feasible? A high-speedmonorail that gets you there in less timethan driving and which is free (unlike drivingwith its congestion and tolls) could welldivert 25% of the people from the highwaysonto the transit system.

• Economically Viable? With capital fromthe sale of ADRs, with income from the FATtolls, and with a for-profit operator, thesystem would be financially viable. It wouldbe entirely possible to have the 80% of thecapital cost paid for by the private sector.

• Environmentally Desirable? Green-fielddevelopments between built-up areas,whose only access is by tollway, will be lessattractive. Urban and near-urban ADR

developments built over covered corridors ina toll-free area and with immediate access toa free high-speed monorail could constitute50% of future developments.

• Politically Achievable? The people are infavour of high-speed monorails. Democratsare in favour of transit. When the high-speed monorail proves itself technically andeconomically viable, and when a strongcorporate constituency develops, most

Republicans will be in favour. Thepeople may even vote for FATcorridors. And who knows… acharismatic pro-transit leadermight step onto the national stagelead us there.

G4, a nationwide guideway gridfor the high-speed monorail, is

feasible, viable, desirable and achievable in the21st Century. This may be one of the majoropportunities of the 21st Century - there is a clearneed, the technology is available, and it could befinanced. The political will is what is nowneeded.

G4 is technically feas-ible, economicallyviable, environmentallydesirable, and polit-ically achievable in the21st Century.

G 4

POSTSCRIPT

This paper is a rewrite of an earlier paper, 21ST

Century Transit - Feasible? Viable? Desirable?Achievable? presented to the conference, NewVisions in Transportation, in Aspen, ColoradoOctober 18-20, 2000.

The Colorado Project: This paper is not aboutthe Colorado project, except that the Coloradoproject would be the first leg of G4. However, itwas cited many times, and so backgroundinformation on this project may be of interest.

Colorado has a major congestion problem alongI-70, connecting Denver metro to the front rangeand mountain resort communities. I-70 is thelifeline for the state’s second largest industry,tourism.

CDOT prepared an MIS in 1997 and 1998 whichexamined all the alternatives for solving thecongestion problem. It concluded that thesolution was a fixed guideway system along I-70along with incremental improvements to thehighway.

In 1998, the state legislature set up the ColoradoIntermountain Fixed Guideway Authority(CIFGA) to plan the fixed guideway. CIFGAissued an RFP and received seven responseswhich included proposals for conventional rail,maglev, PRTs, and the high-speed monorail. Itevaluated the proposals and selected the high-speed monorail. However, CIFGA has haddifficulty winning financial backing for the project.

CIFGA has never been presented norconsidered the FAT corridor approach or ADRdevelopments. Those concepts may or may notbe relevant to the Colorado I-70 project.

21ST CENTURY TRANSIT

Documents

Transcript of 21ST CENTURY TRANSIT