Read more
Find an expanded version of this article at the Mobility for Humans website, sites.google.com/view/mobilityforhumans.
Getting around in Boulder grows ever more frustrating. We have tried one-way and right-sized streets, back-in parking, eco-passes, on-demand pedestrian crossings, and bike-to-work days. Nothing seems to diminish the conflicts that stem from the relentless growth in traffic. I don’t think conflicts are inevitable, but to address them we first need to place the interests of transportation users on a par with the interests of transportation planners.
In the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the measurable objectives established by our planners have to do with the environment, congestion, social justice and safety. However, according to an article by the National League of Cities Center for Research and Innovation, the primary interests of transportation users are comfort, reliability, speed, convenience, out-of-pocket costs and safety. Aside from safety, there is very little overlap between the criteria that city planners feel are important enough to measure and the criteria that matter to transportation users.
To clarify for myself how these different sets of criteria affect preferences for transportation modes, I constructed spreadsheets with travel modes across the tops and either planners’ or users’ criteria down the left sides. I filled in the cells with values that reflect the degree to which each travel mode fulfills each criterion, and used those scores to rank the modes. (To see the spreadsheets, visit Part 1 of sites.google.com/view/mobilityforhumans.)
Not surprisingly, the ranking for transportation users’ criteria and the ranking for transportation planners’ criteria differ significantly. For users, the top-ranked modes are: 1) personal rapid transit, 2) self-driving car, 3) self-driving taxi and 4) auto. For planners, the top modes are: 1) walking, 2) personal rapid transit, 3) bicycling and 4) gondola.
The differences in the rankings underscore the need to include users’ criteria in the TMP. If we hope to identify a transportation system that works for both planners and users, we need to begin with a TMP that considers all the criteria that system must meet. With that goal in mind, I developed a third spreadsheet (Part 2 at sites.google.com/view/mobilityforhumans) that combines the criteria from both planners and users. For the travel modes in this combined spreadsheet, I obtained the following ranking: 1) personal rapid transit, 2) walking, 3) self-driving car, 4) gondola, 5) (a tie) self-driving taxi and bicycling, 7) auto, and 8) bus.
If you already know what the top-ranked personal rapid transit (PRT) is, you probably spend too much time online. But for those who are not transportation wonks, the associated picture illustrates many of the characteristics that define the mode. First, PRT is typically elevated, so PRT vehicles move without interference from street traffic. Second, PRT vehicles are small, so travelers ride by themselves or with one or two friends, as they prefer. Third, PRT vehicles run on guideways, so they operate without interference from other modes. Fourth, PRT guideways are small, so they can be built inexpensively. Finally, PRT systems are automated, so no drivers are required.
The high level of service that PRT provides emerges from these characteristics. Being small and inexpensive, the guideways are structured as a network, providing non-stop origin-to-destination service. Being automated, vehicles are available 24 hours a day. Being small, PRT vehicles wait for riders at stations, instead of riders waiting for vehicles. Being elevated with a dedicated guideway, PRT vehicles travel without traffic interference. This individualized, much superior level of service helps explain why studies predict a “modal split” to PRT of 30 percent of trips and why PRT would be a game-changer for travelers.
PRT would also be a game changer for transportation planners because the effect on Boulder’s transportation system would be enormous. Imagine if the 5 percent of trips to and from work in Boulder that were made only on transit in 2017 became 30 percent of trips. That would mean a 30 percent decrease in cars on the roads and a tremendous increase in social justice, accessibility and fairness. The city of Boulder needs PRT: The city administration needs PRT for efficiency, ecology and economy, and travelers in the city need PRT for the humanity in all of us.
Perhaps my analysis is flawed and buses really are the future, or perhaps I am wrong about the benefits of PRT. But however we assess these various modes, it is time to leave the unsustainable road we are on and think hard about a transportation system that will work for both individuals and the city — as we try to move ahead in a swarming and warming world.
Loren Pahlke lives in Boulder.
