General
Introduction

Section 1:
MINIHIGHWAYS

Section 2:
TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT

Section 3:
MASS TRANSIT
TWINS

Section 4:
RAILPLANES

Section 5:
THE VAULT

Section 3: MASS TRANSIT TWINS

Second Step for Sustainable Transportation

Sustainable transportation cannot always be achieved with new mass transit. In large modern cities with old mass transit, transforming the rail systems already in place for greatly increased capacity is the most convenient, cost-effective, and efficient breakthrough.

CONTENTS of Section 3		(click on bold titles to scroll down)

Introduction
MASS TRANSIT TWINS: The Proposal
THE BENEFITS of Mass Transit Twins
	Strengthening the Economy
	Creating Better Megacities
	Mitigating Global Warming
	Enhancing Homeland Security and Defense
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

INTRODUCTION

The Physics of Development

America is growing increasingly urban and so is the rest of the world. Billions and billions of humans across the globe organize into larger and larger developed environments in pursuit of jobs. These postmodern megacities are dependent primarily on two types of transportation infrastructures satisfying (or failing to satisfy) our growing needs to “get around” the built environment. The first is individual locomotion with private vehicles. The second is collective locomotion with public transportation.

The first type of infrastructure, independent locomotion with private vehicles, got its start millennia ago. The infrastructures and vehicle types grew and evolved through time reaching their maximum footprint with the vast highway infrastructures we know today. But whether bicycles or SUVs, locomotion with private vehicles has its limits. Over the past few centuries, these growth limits were reversed time and time again by a progression of public transportation systems.

Without collective transportation infrastructures creating viable higher-density centers vis-à-vis lower-density suburbs, the built environment sprawls out indefinitely making the developed footprint dysfunctional. We can ride a bicycle or drive a car only so long and only with so many other bicycles and cars sharing rights-of-way. Sooner or later the transportation infrastructure peaks making growth by the same means untenable.

The Highway Growth Limit

In smaller cities with relatively small metro areas, highway sustained growth is cost-effective. But sometime after the population of the metro area surpasses one million, the economic viability of the built environment begins to change. Building new highways or widening existing ones approaches a tipping point requiring a new more cost-effective development strategy.

Today we assume the new development strategy must be some sort of mass transit system, ideally with dedicated rights-of-way. But at this stage in the development ladder (say 1,000,000 urban dwellers), building new mass transit systems with dedicated rails is not necessarily more cost-effective than building more highways. Both infrastructures require growing subsidies making a third alternative—minihighways as proposed in Section 1—a smarter planning choice.

Building minihighways is more cost-effective because these new infrastructures are carefully targeted to serve the more congested three-quarters or so of large metro areas. This makes existing urban highways productive growth infrastructures as they exist. But minihighways serve another vital purpose. Minihighways increase population densities precisely where needed: Throughout the Center and its older suburbs. This makes rail transit more and more viable over time.

The Mass Transit Growth Limit

But mass transit in older cities has reached its growth limit too. This “limitation to development” is most significant in cities with century-old mass transit; cities like New York, Chicago, and Boston. Like the congested industrial cities of the past before today’s mass transit systems were built, for decades now these cities grow less and less productively with inconveniences and costs in a sustained assent.

If we are to advance quality-of-life and reduce cost-of-living one more time, we must do what our industrial ancestors did many times: We must retool the transportation mix for strong population growth. But most of us—architects and urban planners included—fail to see the need for yet another substantial retooling. We assume we can always add more passengers to hyper-congested transit systems already in place.

That is a coping strategy; not a solution.

Increasing passenger count a few percentages points at a time is not enough. Like industrial cities in the 19th century, which doubled population every two or three decades, today’s large cities need to upgrade transit to double population and then double it again. This is a vital task requiring one of two approaches: Building completely new rail systems to complement existing mass transit or, as proposed below because it is much more cost-effective, transforming the transit systems already in place.

Top of Page ↑

MASS TRANSIT TWINS: The Proposal

Mass transit systems serving today’s older industrial cities are top choking points to the American economy second only to highways. Like congested urban highways as they exist today (without minihighways) these older mass transit systems are not growth infrastructures anymore. All peaked sometime in the middle decades of the 20th century with highway sustained growth farther and farther from the Center taking the slack.

This is not sustainable transportation.

Sustainable mass transit is best achieved by upgrading the technology of the existing rights-of-way for slightly higher top speeds for twice as many trains alternating station stops. We call this Mass Transit Twins because, under this scenario, two trains operate in the place of one. One twin makes only “even” stops and the other makes only “odd” stops. This has important benefits that cannot be achieved by other means, as follows:

TIME AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION: Existing rights-of-way and stations are retained with minimal improvements. This reduces time and cost of construction to a small fraction of the time and cost of building a brand new mass transit system with an equal number of rights-of-ways and stations.

CAPACITY: Twice as many trains can operate at any given time. This enhances growth potential by 100% on day one, even if the restructured train service starts operating with fewer cars at first.

TIME OF TRAVEL: Transit Twins make only half as many stops making better technology for slightly higher cruising speeds viable. This reduces transit time by a third or so.

DOWNTOWN: The average commuter has a slightly longer walk in the destination areas of the city making a fast growing pedestrian downtown the most visible part of the transformation. The growing pedestrian population is made viable by widening selected downtown sidewalks and, in some cases, building elevated skywalks with moving sidewalks—not unlike airport terminals. But with many of today’s cars and SUVs increasingly out of the way because the new minicommuters require only half lanes, sidewalks can be widened even if the total number of traffic lanes is retained.

With the technology and operational concept of century-old mass transit upgraded to double capacity while reducing time of travel, other essential long-term improvements are now affordable, even profitable. One consequential improvement is a larger service footprint. This is achieved by extending Transit Twins into the suburbs, creating a new station type serving two kinds of users: a growing population of suburban pedestrians and “Park & Ride” minicommuters. Conventional autos are excluded and, if not, charged hefty parking fees.

If the restructured mass transit system is to be truly cost-effective indefinitely, all areas served by Transit Twins must be rezoned for higher density. This need not happen all at once. With this managed approach to population growth, property values increase in a measured progressive way as they have in the past. This makes construction of new buildings and reconstruction of existing buildings to higher and higher densities viable again. Everyone profits: landlords, tenants, and residents.

Top of Page ↑

THE BENEFITS of Mass Transit Twins

The benefits of renewing century-old mass transit systems for doubled passenger capacity transcend transportation. The following are some of the most significant:

Strengthening the Economy

Lower Construction Costs

Unlike building new subway lines equaling the number of existing rail miles, Mass Transit Twins are built quickly and cost-effectively. The construction cost of the completed transformed system might be as little as 1/5th to 1/20th the cost of doubling the number of rail lines and stations in place today.

These greatly reduced construction costs are possible because building new tunnels and rights-of-way and new belowground stations is a very expensive proposition. Duplicating the infrastructure already in place is substantially more difficult than the original construction because the city has grown and evolved greatly since the original trains opened for business a century ago.

Higher Profit Potential

Since today’s mass transit commute is a congested and increasingly stressed market, the numbers of commuters switching to Transit Twins grows quickly. This makes the upgraded rail system more profitable to its investors—taxpayers or private—than building completely new lines.

Economic Development

With America’s urban environments developing efficiently once more, America embarks on decades of enhanced growth and prosperity the proven old-fashioned way: progressively and for profit. The population required to sustain construction of new infrastructures (transportation and others) grows indefinitely, transforming our cities into superior living environments while increasing our tax base. With population growing and the middle class reenergized, bankrupt safety-net programs like Social Security and Medicare approach solvency again. Subsidies of all kinds disappear, lowering taxes.

Creating Better Megacities

Enhanced Viability of Metro Areas, Mass Transit, and Airports

With mass transit doubled, population densities grow in the city and nearby suburbs. The growing population makes new or expanded rail service to airports viable eliminating the inefficient “hub-and-spokes” operations of multi-flight air travel. Congestion in large metro airports is now reversed without building new runways.

The sustainable megacity of the 21st century will have arrived as it must; delivered by a progression of well-managed market forces, not growing subsidies for more of the same.

Reduced Cost-of-Living In the More Developed Areas

The two largest expenses of today’s urban middle class are housing and transportation. Both costs drop significantly because non-sprawl housing (high-rise apartments replacing existing structures in many cases) becomes competitive again. Just like growing higher density neighborhoods did during the first decades of modern subways.

With cost-effective development in large metro areas transitioning to Transit Twins, the cost-of-living dives. The middle class is strengthened and cities transformed.

Mitigating Global Warming

Environment and Climate Change

The benefits to the environment of fast-growing mass transit are pronounced. Not only are sprawl and traffic congestion reversed, the now impossible becomes commonplace: By reducing car use as well as distance and time of travel, growth itself reduces oil use and global warming. With cities and older suburbs evolving into more compact and affordable neighborhoods, America reduces carbon emissions as a direct byproduct of growth by new and more efficient means.

Global Economy and Environments

With America taking the lead advancing sustainable transportation in old and once industrial cities, other nations transform their century-old mass transit systems for their struggling gridlocked cities. This benefits everyone including poor nations. Also, enhanced economic viability reduces pressure to emigrate. Habitat destruction is reversed and species saved. Use of fossil fuels drops reducing carbon emissions.

Enhancing Homeland Security and Defense

Cost-effective “smart growth” policies such as Mass Transit Twins are important ingredients fighting terror. With the population of pedestrian commuters growing fast, car use in America (and increasingly elsewhere) drops. This reduces oil consumption everywhere drying out the income of unfriendly and unstable oil-rich nations.

Top of Page ↑

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Do we have the technology to double the amount of trains on the same number of tracks safely?

Probably not but the technology can be developed quickly. All we need is smart public policy defining our updated development goals—in essence, a new planning paradigm doubling the number of mass transit trains active at any given time—and making a commitment to follow through. Entrepreneurs will compete taking care of the rest.

If doubling capacity of old transit systems is so easy, why hasn’t it been done?

I never said it was easy but it is surely worth doing. We are failing to build the cities of the future because America is not as progressive implementing new transportation solutions as it used to be. We have bought into the postmodern notion that “too much growth” is bad for society and the environment.

History shows this kind of thinking is shortsighted. Identifying and implementing “the right kind of growth” is always beneficial, even essential, if we are to conquer poverty and stop environmental decay. Growth by new and more convenient, cost-effective, and efficient means is an evolutionary imperative of the highest order. Mass Transit Twins goes a long way achieving that.

Using the same amount of tracks for twice as many trains sounds dangerous to me. Why not double the length of the same number of trains?

Planning for trains twice as long on century-old mass transit may be a more expedient solution technologically. But relying in longer and longer trains is much less cost-effective than Mass Transit Twins, which forces us to update old transit technology for growth in the city and suburbs. The following might be the most important reasons to resist the false simplicity of longer trains:

First, the length of all existing train stations would need to be extended every time we add a new train car. This is a very expensive proposition, especially with belowground stations.

Second, time of travel is not reduced significantly with longer trains, even if the new trains have slightly faster top speeds. This makes it impossible to extend existing rail lines into the suburbs conveniently and cost-effectively. This has two disadvantages:

a) The service footprint of mass transit—the de facto pedestrian city—does not grow. This is a significant setback. If development is to be indefinitely sustained, the footprint of the pedestrian city needs to grow as it has in the past every time an enhanced rail system opened for business.

b) Suburban commuters on minihighways are not easily served. This is another significant setback. If development in the suburbs is to be sustainable as well, the minihighway infrastructure must be planned to serve an outward extension of the rail system.

Building new peripheral stations increases the number of train commuters quickly making the transformed mass transit system viable. This also keeps a lid on future minicommuter traffic at or near the Center. Reducing the number of minicommuters making their way downtown is important because it makes both transportation infrastructures—minihighways and Transit Twins—sustainable for “extra” decades of cost-effective growth.

I’m a New Yorker and I know my subway. Alternating stations for all trains (Mass Transit Twins) will not work here?

You are correct. New York is unlike all other modern cities with old mass transit. Not only does the subway have local and express trains on parallel tracks—the only city in the world with this extraordinary asset—many stations are transfer points and many others handle more than one line on the same tracks. This makes a transformed subway with most trains making only half as many stops a bit more complicated but no less productive.

New Yorkers can still upgrade the technology of their subway for pronounced long-term growth if they set their minds to do so. Complexity can be a friend opening up new possibilities.

Why limit the transformation of old mass transit systems to double capacity? Why not develop technology that increases capacity by several factors?

Why not indeed! How about tripling the number of cars with Mass Transit Triplets stopping every three stations? With the number of in-transit stops reduced by 2/3rds and the new trains capable of slightly higher top speeds, transit time is reduced by almost half. This makes even longer transit extensions into the suburbs viable.

Of course, this would require a more comprehensive restructuring of the pedestrian infrastructure downtown. But in most cities, wider sidewalks—even pedestrian-only streets—are a great asset. As opposed to the highly subsidized light-rail solutions of today’s “New Urbanism,” that kind of hyper-pedestrian city may prove to be the real New Urbanism of the 21st century.

It’s unreasonable to assume we can identify the precise solutions of the future for any particular city here. This initiative will succeed only if it opens our collective minds to the possibility and desirability of truly cost-effective solutions to our growing transportation deficiencies. Only then can we hope to transform our great cities for generations of growth with profound economic and environmental benefits.

Why not transform old mass transit with high-speed trains traveling above 100 MPH like they have in many other countries?

High-speed trains connect cities, not neighborhoods of cities.

Given that new train technology is required if we are to double the population of today’s older industrial cities using existing rail corridors, making the new trains faster is a reasonable expectation. But it is not likely that true high-speed trains will ever operate at their design speeds in existing rights-of-way. Not even if the technology of the rail itself is upgraded, as it probably should be because it is a century old.

Generally speaking, the rights-of-way of old mass transit are not straight enough and the station stops are not far apart enough to justify high-speed trains even with alternating stops. A more productive approach reducing time of travel is to continue increasing the “train density” of existing rights-of-way indefinitely. This might be achieved by skipping additional station stops—Transit Twins at first with Triplets and Quads following—and secondary systems such as people movers and moving sidewalks at destination areas.

Adding more and more trains with less and less stops makes it possible to operate a new class of hybrid mass transit train with two kinds of cars on all trains:

a) More conventional mass transit cars serving the original city footprint with a growing population of straphangers and

b) More conventional train cars for commuting comfortably seated—and for a higher fare—from the suburbs.

The goal of sustainable transportation is not necessarily to implement the most advanced technology for speed or anything else. The goal is always structural: to make strong population growth as “convenient, cost-effective, and efficient” as possible. Any new or converted rail infrastructure achieving those three goals is, by definition, the most sustainable.

Top of Page ↑