# Presentation: 134205

## The Personal Transportation Alternative for America’s Parks and Public Lands

**Franz Gimmler**
**TRB Annual Meeting**
**January, 2004**

## Outline of Presentation

- Park ATS search favors transit
- What shaped Mass Transit
- Resulting transit technologies
- What Shapes Park Visitor Experience
- Park paradigm mismatch with Transit
- Better Mode Choices
- Need for Demonstration of Alternatives

**Notes:**
Conventional mass transportation technologies have been favored in the search for alternative transportation systems in America’s Federal Lands.  This paper takes a closer look at this phenomenon.  It examines the historical forces that led to current mass transportation technologies.  It also looks at the needs of the park visitor for mobility and the needs of park management for resource protection. An examination of the two settings, urban and park, conventional mass and emerging “small” technologies, helps to clarify the needs that are unique to the parks and to the park visitors and to conceptualize an alternative transportation vision that better serves our public lands and those that visit them. 
 	Conventional transportation technologies available to the parks as alternatives to the automobile are optimized for the urban environment. Yet, the transportation needs of the park visitor are quite different from those of the urban traveler.  This presents a dilemma to the park transportation planner. This paper postulates a new form of transportation to respond to this dilemma.  

As one’s perception shifts from urban to parks and from mass to personal visitor, a paradigm shift occurs.  This paper examines that shift. 

## Mass Transit Paradigm

**Notes:**
Mass Transportation systems grew out of the need to rapidly transport large numbers of people along city streets in relatively dense urban areas.  The trolley and then the bus sought efficiencies by maximizing the number of passengers per vehicle and per operator.  When high demand and surface congestion justified subways, elevated structures or other exclusive rights-of-way, these same efficiencies were further exploited.  In all cases, speeds were maximized in order to reduce travel time. To this day, driver operated transportation systems are driven to maximize “passenger-mile per operator-hour” economies.

Designing a vehicle to maximize both carrying capacity and speed led to many consequences.  Designing transit vehicles that were compatible with private street vehicles and freight rail rolling stock and were safe to operate in mixed traffic on both road and rail also had significant impacts.  

## Characteristics of Mass Transit

- High Speed
- Large Vehicle
- Crashworthiness
- Weight
- Efficiency
- Infrastructure
- Operations

## High Speed

**Notes:**
1.      High Speed: In order to maintain attractively low travel times, especially in the face of frequent stops, transit vehicles were typically designed to travel 60 miles per hour and higher, with rapid acceleration and deceleration rates.  This lead to high voltages, powerful engines, heavy transmissions and large braking systems.   

## Large Vehicle

**Notes:**
2        Large Vehicle: Minimum headways and the desire to maximize the productivity of the transit vehicle operator have led to large high capacity vehicles.  The only limits on vehicle size are those imposed by maneuverability, ROW dimensions and turning radii.

## Infrastructure

**Notes:**
4.      Infrastructure: Again because of the weight, size and speed of transit vehicles, the structures needed to support them, including road bed and rail bed, bridge structures and tunnels are intrusive and costly. 

## Other Characteristics

- Crashworthiness
- Weight
- Efficiency
- Operations

**Notes:**
2        Crashworthiness: Because bus transit vehicles are designed to operate in mixed traffic, at roadway speeds, safety and liability require sturdy vehicles.  The transit vehicle has to withstand collisions at high speeds with automobiles and trucks. The result is a vehicle structure that is sturdy -- and heavy.  Trolley cars operate on city streets and inherit some of the design criteria of the Class "A" railroad. These criteria, seen most clearly in commuter rail technologies, include crashworthiness in freight rail operations at very high speeds.  
4.      Weight: Although not sought, the consequence of the size, speed, and crashworthiness is weight.  Transit vehicles are heavy.  This weight translates into large and costly frames, axles, and suspension systems.  Weight translates into energy costs.  
5.      Efficiency: Whether operating as a private transit company or public transit authority, costs are paramount.  Thus the primary criteria for the procurement of public transportation technologies is initial capital cost and operating cost.  These considerations dominate other considerations such as noise and air pollution.
7.      Operations: Operationally, urban travel patterns and the “batching” characteristics of mass transit vehicles lead to linear, scheduled, fixed route, fixed and limited stop operating protocols.

## Rubber Tired Technologies

- Tourist Trams, Trolley Replicas
- Vans and Small Transit Buses
- Large and Small School Buses
- Small and Standard Transit Buses
- Articulated, Bi-Articulated Buses
- Motor Coaches
- Double Decker
- Electric Trolley Buses
- Buses with Trailers, Low Floor Buses

## Rail, Guided Technologies

- Light Rail
- Heavy Rail
- Conventional Passenger Rail
- Monorail
- People Movers, Cable Shuttles
- Historic Trolleys
- Narrow Gauge Railroads

## Other Special Purpose

- Aerial Tramways, Gondolas
- Pontoons and Skiffs
- Catamarans, Mono-Hull Vessels
- Cog Railways, Funiculars
- Hydrofoils
- Snow Coaches
- Snow Buses

**Notes:**
The Point
These were actual candidates considered in 3039 Study
None of these less than 10 to 30 passengers
All Built for speed
Most are heavy and intrusive
How many are true alternatives
Think about them as you look at next pictures

## Parks are Different

## Park Transportation Paradigm

- Travel is an Experience, not just a Trip
- Wayside has High Value
- Mode affects Experience
- Park is Precious
- Park Resources must be Protected
- Parkland has single Owner/Manager

## Ideal Visitor Experience

- Education, Interpretation
- Inspiration, Contemplate
- Explore, Random, Adventure,
- Spontaneous Pace, Sequence
- Seamless, Effortless
- Undistracted, movement/rest
- No alien sounds, sights
- Information en-route or at features
- Shared with Friend, Family of Choice

## Ideal Mobility System for Park

- Leave Resources “Unimpaired”
- Untouchable
- Topography, Hydrology
- Plant Life, Animal Habitat
- Non-polluting to Air, Water. Quiet
- Non-intrusive physically, visuallyGood Platform for interpretation
- Reasonable capital, operating costs

## Park ParadigmPark Manager Meets Park Visitor 

_**LOW SPEED**_
_**SMALL VEHICLES**_
**Light Weight**
**Small Power Unit**
**Energy Source**
**Energy Storage**
**Intrusiveness**
**Design Flexibility**
**Structures**
**Costs**

**Notes:**
Park transportation systems must respond to the above two very singular imperatives.  The systems must not degrade either the place itself or the visitor’s experience of the place.  When parks are compared to all other environments, these two conditions become truly consequential.  They are critical to determining the shape of desirable park transportation alternatives and should dominate every design consideration.  They are of such force and effect that they surely represent an entirely new challenge for transportation planners and call for new types of “park vehicles.”

## Park Paradigm

- Low Speed

**Notes:**
Low Speed: Park transportation systems may exhibit relatively low maximum design speeds.  While traveling and observing the park surroundings, travel need not exceed 20 miles per hour.  If higher speeds are desirable, they will be found under relatively rare circumstances or in select locations.  Many visitors currently travel through our parks at speeds in excess of 20 mph.  They are impatient to “get there” not realizing that they “are there.”  Properly prepared to make that same trip segment a part of their park experience, the visitor would move slowly, stop occasionally, all the while looking, listening, and experiencing the park.

## Park Paradigm

- Small Vehicle

**Notes:**
Small Vehicles: Most commonly, Americans visit the parks individually or in small groups -- couples and families.  Therefore, transportation systems that take these small personal groups where each want to go, and when, and in the sequence that each desires – that system has the potential to attract and serve the largest group of park visitors.  Such a personal transportation system is “the best” system. 
These two important forces, Speed and Vehicle Size, dominate the park paradigm and lead to a number of consequential characteristics of desirable park transportation systems.

## Park Paradigm

- Light Weight

**Notes:**
Light Weight: With a lower maximum design speed, the power requirements of any transportation system are greatly reduced.  In addition, comfortable acceleration, jerk and braking rates are reduced.  As a result, the bulk and weight of propulsion and braking components is reduced.  Similarly, lateral and vertical acceleration rates are lowered, lightening and simplifying steering and suspension systems.  As a result of these reductions in performance requirements, the size and weights of park transportation vehicles and components can be greatly reduced. 

## Park Paradigm

- Small Power Unit

**Notes:**
Power Unit: Lower weight leads directly to reductions in the power required to operate park vehicles. Not only does that mean that smaller gasoline or diesel engines can be used to power park vehicles.  It also means that alternative power sources become feasible for park transportation. In particular batteries, fuel cells and other attractive hybrid power systems that are currently limited in size and capacity are immediately feasible in the park setting.  It also means that under many circumstances, non-motorized systems are attractive.

## Park Paradigm

- Energy
- 	Source

**Notes:**
Energy Source: Pollution, both air pollution and noise pollution, are critical to the quality of the natural environment of the parks.  Therefore, the source of energy, and the engine or motor by which energy is converted to power in the vehicle, are critical to acceptable park transportation systems.  Because speed, small size, and light weight all reduce energy requirements, innovative small propulsion units using alternative energy sources are welcome in the park environment. Gasoline and diesel fuel, when used in internal combustion engines, contribute to air pollution, including green house gases.  Alternative fuels, including CNG, are a practical first step toward clean park transportation.  Electric power is currently seen as the most desirable form of energy for park transportation.  Stationary electric power generating plants have preferred air-quality profiles.  Renewable electric energy, from the wind, the sun, or from geo-thermal sources is most desirable.  Human powered, non-motorized mobility is seen by many as the ideal.

## Park Paradigm

- Energy
- 	Storage

**Notes:**
Energy Storage: Batteries and fuel cells are promising technologies.  Both are “clean” and can be used as a component in various hybrid systems.  They are particularly promising when used in small vehicles, under controllable usage cycles.  For these reasons, park transportation applications are well suited for the introduction of early model, light duty, electric and hybrid power systems.

## Park Paradigm

- Intrusiveness

**Notes:**
Intrusiveness: By virtue of lower speeds and smaller size, vehicle bulk, profile and footprint can all be reduced.  Smaller systems present less visual intrusion on those pristine areas that many of the parks contain, and which most visitors wish to experience. 

## Park Paradigm

- Design Flexibility

**Notes:**
Design Flexibility: With less speed and less weight, stresses in the park vehicle are reduced. This allows new non-metallic materials to be used in park vehicles and structures.  The use of lighter weight materials for vehicle frame and substructure leads to further savings in weight and cost.  Plastics and composite materials permit lighter weights, greater design flexibility and the improved maintainability of non-corrosive materials. 

## Park Paradigm

- Structures

**Notes:**
Structures: Systems that employ smaller, slower and lighter vehicles realize saving in their civil structures such as bridges, tunnels, and roadway/guideways.  Roadways are narrower, with thinner concrete and asphalt pavements, including permeable crushed-stone surfaces and other non-pavement alternatives.  Light bridging components can be used to suspend the pathway above the ground where ground cover conditions are particularly fragile. Bridges can be designed for lower loading. Tunnels with smaller cross-sections can employ standard culverts and other multi-use tunnel components to reduce costs.  Composite materials can be used in place of conventional structural steel and concrete to add maintainability, design flexibility, and to lower cost using off-site industrial fabrication methods.  Because they can be designed with tighter radii of curvature, both horizontal and vertical, these park systems can fit more comfortably into the topographic and other constraints of the park scene. 

## Park Paradigm

- Costs

## Cycles

## Peddle Cycles

## Electric Cycles

## Scooters

## Gulf Carts

## Neighborhood

## Road MVSS 

## Personal Water Craft

##    Structures

##     Segway

## Bike Rental

## Soft Mobility

- Support Pedestrians & Bicyclists
- Extend Public Transport in the Destination and on the way
- Use Emission Free/Low Emission Vehicles
- Keep Whole City Centers/Rec areas free of Cars and I/C Engines
- Market SOFT MOBILITY

## What’s Next

- Vision - Hypothesis
- NPS/USFS/USFWS/BLM Ownership
- Funding
- Demonstration
- Deployment
- Data Collection
- Ongoing