Tomorrow's Transportation: PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT

Tomorrow's Transportation: PERSONAL RAPID TRANSIT

faculty.washington.edu

The following document is an excerpt from a 100 page
report to the U.S. Congress that was submitted in 1968
by President Lyndon Johnson. It was undertaken by the
Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (Robert Weaver) at the request of Congress.

Personal rapid transit would provide travelers the important
advantages of minimum waiting time at the origin station,
and private, secure accommodations.

(visit the link for the full news article)

If such a system was possible in 1968, imagine what we could do now.

Why couldn't we have a system where people own their own small rail cars, which they operate in conjunction with the system's control network to travel to different destinations. This would allow the convenience of being able to easily transport purchases from the markets to the home, travel at the time you choose to travel without having to catch some public transport, give individuals the privacy and security we feel with individual transportation, along with all the other advantages of our current automobiles, along with considerable other advantages.

First of all we could largely eliminate the human factor from the equation. Acceleration, braking, navigation, and steering would all be controlled by computers. Sure, give individuals the ability to react when things go wrong, but with redundant systems, this should be a far more reliable system than we currently have. This would eliminate the need for traffic tickets and traffic police, which give the police any excuse in the world to pull you over. POV insurance would also be vastly eliminated.

Commuter time would no longer be a huge waste. Instead of concentrating on the road, and trying to minimize your road rage, you could do pretty much whatever you want in your own vehicle. In addition, vehicles could be connected and controlled as a large single vehicle eliminating the massive amount of freeway space taking up by the need for reaction time, and people who want more room in front of them in traffic. Multiple rails would be needed where those who are exiting can be reasonably converted to the outer slower lanes onto exit rails, while those traveling further distances can be in the inner rails moving at higher speeds. A safe system of managing this should not be that hard to develop.

Inner city travel could possibly be at speed up to two hundred MPH. You could cross the country in your POV in 12 hours.

People pay into the system by power usage. Shipping should probably be done on separate rail systems.

The U.S. government went into debt double that of the current GDP in 1945 to pay for WW II, and that ended the last depression. Government borrowing to build such a transportation system would be a better way of getting out of this depression.








faculty.washington.edu
(visit the link for the full news article)

The system could be built on an elevated platform above existing streets, allowing people to continue to use their cars until the system was available. On most rail systems, the box cars and passenger cars are huge in comparison with personal vehicles, even the largest personal vehicles. A rail system designed only for personal vehicles could be far more light weight than current rail systems. This would make building the system on elevated platforms much easier.

The other advantage to an elevated system would be that roads would stop being the barriers to pedestrian traffic and bicycles that they currently are. We wouldn't have to worry about children crossing the street.

Other huge advantages of such a system. With the development of frequency drives, AC motors would be used, so no brushes to change. An AC motor is very simple, and extremely reliable, with a life time several times that of a combustion engine. All there is to an AC motor is a shaft, a set of bearings, a rigid housing, a rotor which is an electrical coil mounted on the shaft, and the stator, which is electrical coils mounted in the housing. The only moving parts are the set of bearings. An electric motor gets five times the life of a combustion engine, and it doesn't need all the extra support components, like a coolant pump. A tiny squirt of grease every three months, and you are set, no oil to change, no transmission fluid, no clutch.

Mom and Dad can have their own vehicles to get around, and then when the family decides to go on vacation, they could connect the two vehicles together so they have twice the space for storage, and a third car to pack their suitcases and other gear inside.

I find these sort of things to be a bit disheartening. It seems to me that not too long ago, in the post-war era, there was a vision of the future that was full of hope, if not utopian, very close to it. Look at ideas and architecture that came out of the 50s, 60s and early 70s, and a lot of it was environmental, clean, futuristic, often utilitarian and/or fostering a sense of community...what happened?

From the late 70s to today, it seems that society has moved in the exact opposite direction, shunning the community for a dog-eat-dog, individualist ideal.

Gone is the utility. Gone is the community. Gone is the common good. Gone is hope that an efficient, clean, utopia can be created...instead, when we look at the future, all that we see are the things that will eventually bring destruction...climate change, recession/depression, terrorism, world war....

Granted, I'm young...only just over a quarter of a century old...but, is it me, or does this era in history really suck, despite the advancements and entertainment we have abound...?

We've come so far, and yet we're so far from the future envisioned not long ago....though our technical abilities have far surpassed what was expected......it is a strange contrast between what could be and what is...

Yeah, good point. It is almost like sometime between the sixties and the seventies we entered this new dimension where the future of mankind was self destruction. The dark forces of the CWO seemed to have successfully intervened during that time period, and it has all been down hill ever since.

There is no reason why we shouldn't be heading into an era of greater efficiency, shorter work weeks, with far greater economic security.

I don't think we are ready for flying cars, but I think this kind of rail system would be a major step in the right direction. It certainly is doable, and now would be an ideal time.

In the early 1960's I watched the Flintstones and the Jetsons almost every night on TV. I don't know if it was aired that way on purpose, but the contrast was there, past and future with me stuck in the present. Back then we all thought we would be flying around in Jetson type vehicles by now. I like that idea. What happened?

The thought of overhead rails is not too appealing to me. Maybe I'll come around to it.

I think that the advantage of an overhead rail system would be that they wouldn't create artificial barriers to pedestrians and bike riders the way our current rail system and Interstate freeways do. Elevated systems would give people riding in their cars great views of the city and countryside, and help give people positive attitudes.

There are also maintenance advantages to having such systems above ground, they are easier to get at. I think they should be fully enclosed to prevent things dropping to the ground below, and an effort should be made to contain the sound as well. Put a roof above these systems, but put windows in them so that people can look out. Where appropriate, put glass windows. Maybe some sort of ejector style could be designed to reduce wind drag.

Then they could build a separate underground system for transporting goods and materials after the elevated personal transport system is built.

Maybe instead of sinking our nation further into debt propping up a failed system, we could actually try to do something for future generations, other than leaving them massive debts.

What happened to the days when people of the U.S. believed in themselves.

A WW II effort to rebuild our nations infrastructure is exactly what we need.