 |
The Smart Jitney: Rapid, Realistic Transport |
4 Comments |
| By Matt Mayer in Green Living, Green Products, Travel | April 19, 2007 | ||
Community Solutions recently issued a report about modifications necessary to our transportation
infrastructure in a future world where we experience declining oil supplies. (Community Solutions, if you aren’t familiar with them, is the group that created the documentary “The Power of Community: How Cuba survived Peak Oil”) They are proposing a system they are calling the Smart Jitney, which is essentially a souped up ride share program designed to reduce the amount of cars on our roads. And I have to say, I like it. I like it a lot.
I recently read through a report by Alliance Bernstein about the future of automobiles where they placed all the marbles for our future transportation needs in the plugged in hybrid basket. Essentially making quite a few difficult, and risky, assumptions that we will be able to sequester power plant emissions (unproven), generate clean energy for our homes and cars (not at the levels we are generating now), and create a new infrastructure built around a totally new type of car (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars). In short, they are making some huge leaps there to support their given choice for transportation.
I think a belief that somehow through technology we will be miraculously saved and able to maintain our current lifestyle is a fatal flaw of our society. One that we need to give much though to as we move forward into this future in front of us.
Community Solutions takes a more realistic approach to their analysis of our transportation system. What about mass transit? What about hybrids? Plug in hybrids? Hydrogen cars? Bikes? Walking? It’s all discussed in their Smart Jitney report. And even better, they develop a solution that is very realistic in it’s cost in real dollars, easy to implement in it’s totality, is achievable and realistic, and is already happening in some places around the world. I recommend you check out the report today by clicking here.
Loading ...
ken said,
I think this is an OK idea too. However, the mass transit analysis is superficial and even, in its discussion of New York City’s system, misleading. There’s an inbetween position between “mass transit is the solution” and “mass transit won’t work anywhere in America, period.” Most of our major cities would be crippled without their transit systems, as they don’t have the parking, nor the road capacity, to handle such an increase in vehicular travel.
The Smart Jitney is, in fact, a form of transit, and people who ride with others on the Jitney will arrive at their destinations without their own vehicle. This would (1) make much of our vast acres of parking unnecessary; and (2) create demand for places where goods and services are available on foot. Expect an increase in value for mixed-use places, both existing downtowns and suburban commercial areas that can be densified and diversified by converting the reserve land used today for parking fields.
Matt Mayer said,
Ken–
While I do agree that the analysis of mass transit was not the best, it certainly is more than I’ve seen in most discussions regarding transportation options for a future with oil scarcity. Most discussions spend all their time talking about ways that our car could be modified to work in the future. The idea that we can keep motoring along in perpetuity is a sad idea that still infects a lot of people.
I disagree with your assertion that most of our large cities would be crippled without their mass transit systems. Mass transit, for the most part, moves it’s people in specific isolated directions along given “routes”. That severely limits the people who can participate in it’s use. And while it does work very well for those it can include, the exorbitant cost of creating the system that commuters want (light rail or subway) makes these options less than appealing. Hence one reason why I think the Smart Jitney is so appealing. It can use our existing road investments very effectively and transport people to their specific destination rather than to a location along a route. The low initial cost of this service can be used to overcome a lot of possible negatives.
A few years ago I lived in the Kansas City Metro area. For a period of time the city was all abuzz over installing some light rail systems, mainly along a main corridor from a feeder suburb (Olathe) along I-35 to the downtown KC area. (They mostly wanted them because Uncle Sam was handing out free money not because anyone had a really burning need for it) While I like mass transit the cost of installing this line worked out to tens of thousands of dollars per daily rider. Essentially meaning that the product could never pay for itself and would always be a cash drain on the city.
The problem with light rail and subway systems is that people are enamored with the sexiness and beauty of those options and they lose all rationality regarding the cost. For my example, a better option than light rail would have been a bus service, using an existing interstate lane re-dedicated to the bus service with the stops at set intervals along the way, just as with the light rail. Essentially, a bus based light rail system. The only cost would have been a couple of buses and some barricades installed to keep the car traffic out of the dedicated line. The flexibility and low cost of this system would greatly outweigh any loss of creature comfort from using a bus over a light rail system. Heck, they could have the barricades set up to be removed during non peak rush hour times so that then more interstate is available for use by the cars. You might think that it would make the traffic worse, but then, isn’t the idea to get the cars off the road? If you offer a good option when traffic worsens people would stop driving and start riding. Especially if the service is quicker than driving and closely as convenient. I believe Houston has started doing this to a certain extent and it is working quite well. And Curitiba, Brazil has been doing this for going on 30 years with great results in moving people efficiently and inexpensively, and using a prudent amount of fuel.
Steve said,
Smart jitneys are a good idea, particularly if they involve volunteer drivers, but what about regulations ranging from municipal anti-jitney laws [I believe one of those, in Houston, TX, was thrown out in 1995] to federal ADA regulations that require, among other things, wheelchair lifts?
Many politicians and lobbyists these days, in my view, don’t let the facts about smart jitneys get in the way of their emotional stories about how having smart jitneys would affect existing ideas or providers, or how it would not meet certain regulations. I like your idea, but the transit inefficiency and regulatory culture would, I think, be an obstacle to its implementation.
How would the smart jitney address the various regulations and impacts on such implementation?
anonymous said,
Jitney + tracked vehicles + automation (driverless vehicles) = GRT. Higher initial cost (to build the tracks/guideways) but much cheaper to operate since you don’t need to pay for drivers, and much cleaner and more efficient because rail has less rolling resistance and allows for faster speeds for the same propulsion, dedicated and separated rights-of-way allow faster and safer operation, power can be supplied by third-rail electric rather than gasoline, computer control of acceleration and deceleration, and a system-wide algorithm that choose routes that maximize speed, fuel efficiency and/or cost efficiency.