1. “The SP Express Commuter System”
(SPEC System)
Brian Garsden
March 2013
2. The search for the “Holy Grail” – that
being: a system for moving people
around, quickly and efficiently, in the
world’s presently congested cities
3. To take a “big picture” view and ask:
“When it comes to moving people around in cities –
can we do it better? If so how?”
4.
5. Private cars?
Public Transport? (PT)
An acceptable mix?
Are our present efforts on track?
Should there be more uptake of modern Personal
Rapid Transport (PRT) schemes?
Why is a fix so elusive?
6. 1) difficulty in prising people out of their much-
loved cars - a situation reinforced by “Big Oil”,
car makers and others
2) formidable obstacles in retro-fitting PRT to
an established, crowded city;
◦ but that is where it is needed (no good building it in
areas of low density)
◦ but sometimes there is opportunity to secure rights-
of-way ahead of need
7. Let us try a different approach
(Instead of taking what we have now; things we
know; things we are familiar with; to modify
these in the hope of improvements) – take a
blank sheet
Start with the creation of a “specification” – a
statement of what a commuter wants
We can hazard a good guess at this
8.
9.
10. safety
comfort
service available whenever wanted
“respectable” speed (perhaps 100km/h ?)
express travel, not influenced by the travel plans
of others
11. system that flows freely, without possibility of
jams, with high carrying capacity
reliable in operation
efficient (re energy use, in moving people)
happy customers
avoiding operating empty vehicles just to meet
a timetable, when there is no demand
12. system free of local pollution (i.e. remote energy
generation)
elimination of road rage and trauma from
accidents
a city that is efficient
a city that is a pleasant place in which to live
13. Let us seek, with an open mind, a great
solution, the Holy Grail. How will we know
when we’ve found it?
“The best public transport system that
21st century technology can devise”
the primary test: that commuters will gladly
choose it rather than use cars
(there are other tests - re outcomes for the
operating authority and for society)
14. No. There is still a way to go
much of what we know has its origins in 19th
century technology
work to modernise “Personal Rapid Transit”
(PRT) is diverse, un-coordinated and slow to
find acceptance
schemes don’t yet “join all the dots”
15.
16. Ideas first presented in IEAust Journal -1972
Described in “Goodbye Gridlock” Seaview Press
(2006)
Process: take a blank sheet; create a
“specification” for what constitutes the “Holy Grail”;
devise a virtual design (that is feasible with
existing technology)
17. This sets the scene at the visionary overview
level
(One may see this as a “wish list” – made boldly,
without thoughts of
this will be too costly
this may not be feasible)
18. Adopting a low-cost (computer based 3D Virtual
Design) approach for early concepts leading to
detailed designs – this phase could take us to
the level where we address “the devil in the
detail”
19. In this book, both the broad overview (involving
the specified features – the “wish list”) and the
devil in the detail are explained – at least to the
point that shows all features are possible within
the capacity of existing 21st century technology.
No great breakthrough is needed (other than in
thinking big, being ambitious)
20. safe - vehicles all move at common speed
under automatic control - no drivers
system speed 100km/h - much improved on
the common 20-30 km/h for cars and PRT
everyone seated in comfortable cabin
express travel, on demand, 24/7 service
system capacity beats 30 freeways
21. Goodbye Gridlock explains in detail
one aim in the book was to answer skepticism
to show how speed, capacity and performance
could be achieved
a criticism of the book was lack of images
this was intentional to:
◦ encourage the reader to visualise a solution
◦ keep the book’s cost to less than $15
22. No. But we acknowledge PRT work (Pod Cars)
by many people around the world
There are systems that have some of the
features, such as: seats for all, point-to-point
service, driver-less, on-demand, around-the-
clock, energy efficient (elimination of
intermediate stops) and so on, but there is not
yet one that “joins all the dots”
23. Google “pod cars” - over 64 million results
much good work has been done around the
world and much money has been spent
the uptake of PRT has been disappointing
it is difficult in Australia to get politicians at all
levels (federal, state, local) to take PRT
seriously. Some think “more buses” is visionary
24.
25. Not one of them is comparable in: method of
gathering pods for launch; method for entering
and exiting the guide-way; vehicle design;
propulsion system. Not one has all features of:
system speed; system capacity (people per
hour); on-demand (with vehicles moving only
when meeting a need)
26. need is pressing. The car is not the answer
◦ no matter what its fuel
mix of modes needs better integration
◦ active transport (walking, cycling)
◦ cars
◦ existing Public Transport, future PRT
a great PRT system needs a great concept
start with a blank sheet and specify “wants”
27. In seeking the Holy Grail - the best Public
Transport System the 21st century can devise -
the concept given the name SPEC System is
worthy of attention. It aims to match, as closely
as possible, the “wants” with what is feasible.
28. The right consortium (academic, business,
government) to progress R&D could:
back a “best-practice” concept that had all of
the parties aiming at the same target
standardise the basic metrics:
◦ system speed
◦ time pulse (“slot”) parameter
◦ cluster (“train of pods”) configuration
adopt preferred propulsion method
29. perhaps Australia’s population is not big
enough for us to go our own way in developing
a unique PRT system?
however, Australians have a proud history in
generating good ideas
a way forward is in R&D using 3D Virtual
Reality to create value via IP (joint effort,
academic, business and government with
shared vision). Let us all join the debate!
