Project 21 Monobeam

PROJECT 21: Does It Matter?

2008-05-19T00:21:00.009-04:00

By L.K. Edwards

The Project 21* monobeam is an elegant prescription for grave problems that plague Americans:

Global warming and local air pollution
Long commutes in congested traffic
The cost of owning, operating, and insuring multiple cars
Rising taxes to expand the highways.

What is this monobeam? Our video from a CNN broadcast tells a lot. The system was highly praised after that 1996 unveiling. However, Futrex, the company over which I presided until then, abruptly changed course, as discussed below. But first, let's discuss the context.

Automobiles, for most of us the only practical way to get around, have proliferated until they dominate our lives. City dwellers were happier when they rode the ubiquitous trolleys. Today, those who can't afford a car or taxi have no choice but to crawl along in buses. (Manhattan, with numerous subways, is an exception.)

Now the developing countries are hell-bent on repeating our mistake. It is predicted that China and India alone will add more cars by 2050 than exist in the entire world today, worsening their congestion and air pollution and boosting the price we pay for oil.

Metros, also known as subways, serve some city dwellers. But with a typical cost in excess of $150 million a mile, they can't possibly match the need, and the Government has served notice that brand-new Metros won't even be considered for Federal funding.

With autos, trucks, and buses saturating the roads, why is there so little overhead transit? "Elevated" systems existed 50 years ago, but their looming bulk was too much, and they were dismantled nearly everywhere. Then monorails and elevated people-movers were tried in a few cities, but just weren't viable. Why so? The seldom-recognized reason is this: although they are OK in a big loop or shuttling between A and B, they can't form networks of two-way traffic. Unable to branch out or even to make sharp turns, they will never allow the widespread networks that trolley cars once provided.

The Project 21 monobeam cuts this Gordian knot, as you saw in the video. That's what makes it a world-class breakthrough, backed by decades of research and refinement. The recommended form for Project 21 above city streets is shown in the Mini-trip.

All at once it is possible to have

On one slender beam, swift electric trains that serve as many people in both directions as ten lanes of surface traffic.
Enclosed stations for those trains, compact enough to fit above typical city streets and just a quarter the length of the usual Metro station.
Time-saving features such as prepaid fares and level boarding.
And the branching capability to allow diverse networks of two-way traffic.

As noted above, in 1996 the new Futrex management departed from what had just been demonstrated. Despite my protests they announced larger trains, higher speed, automated operation, and other changes, all to be available at the outset. They never found a buyer with all these expanded claims. And they didn't attract sufficient investment for demonstration of the redefined system, even though the Federal government appropriated some $6 million to get underway. But the comprehensive 1996 designs are still on the shelf, security for a $1.25-million loan.

As inventor of Project 21 and founder of Futrex, I now seek a deep-pocket entity that will buy out Futrex, settle its debts, and proceed with quick exploitation of the 1996 design that is still locked up. I can help to arrange the buyout and implement that design. Also, I expect to patent significant improvement of a critical feature. Past retirement age, I don't aspire to lead the effort.

Till now I have favored completion in the US because this is a potential source of national pride and thousands of jobs. But I don't favor Federal support because, sad to say, the Federal Government has never sponsored a world-class advance in rail transit.

Here is a unique and affordable technology, already researched and praised by experts as well as books and the media, that can make a huge difference in global warming, the price of gas, and other major concerns.

________

*This system was known as Project 21 for over a decade and then as System 21 from 1987 to 1996. Today Project 21 applies to the documented 1996 version and System 21 is whatever the remaining Futrex "management" proposes.

Testimonial of Prof. Jerry Schneider

2008-05-18T23:00:00.004-04:00

September 15, 2007

To Whom It May Concern

As a retired faculty member from the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Washington (Seattle), I have, for the past decade, managed a website that provides a comprehensive survey of innovative transit systems being developed around the world. It now attracts thousands of daily visitors from around the globe.

Based on my background and up-to-date knowledge of innovations in the transportation field, I want to call your attention to one of these systems that I think needs urgent attention.. I can assure you that the Project 21 Monobeam was unique in the world in the 1990s and remains so today. I believe that every effort needs to be made to develop it to the level that is market-ready.

I regard it with high esteem and think that you would find it to be very helpful in dealing effectively with the rapidly growing and debilitating urban transportation congestion and pollution problems in our cities. Because it can provide two-way travel on one monobeam, it can fit into urban settings much more easily that conventional rail and monorail systems. Due to its compact design, it can also probably be built for far less cost and with much less construction disruption. Its excellent environmental attributes stem from its minimal use of electricity for propulsion, zero air pollution in the city and very low noise impacts. Project 21 is easily switched from one track to another, making it especially useful for providing high levels of mobility in both urban and suburban applications. All of these attributes are critical to the success of an urban mass transit system.

The Project 21 Monobeam concept was initially demonstrated in 1996 with a ¼ scale operating model and was judged, at that time, to be the most promising form of elevated mass transit for the future.. This assertion is supported by the testimonials of Dr. MacCready, Dr. Vuchic, and Dr. Keith as shown at Larry Edward's website: http://project21monobeam.com/ An important point made is that this Monobeam system "could vault the US from urban mass transit laggard to primacy in the world."

I have not seen any other mass transit solution that shows more promise during the past decade. Its features are currently well-described and illustrated at two websites: http://project21monobeam.com/ and http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/project21.htm

Larry Edwards, the inventor of Project 21, has explained to me that he favors mounting a full-scale development program in the U.S. without using Federal funding. I believe that his monobeam system could assist a variety of cities around the world that wish to reduce the negative effects of traffic congestion and pollution. Moreover, the U.S. could benefit greatly from manufacturing and exporting such a valuable product.

I believe that the rapid development of a successful monobeam transit technology could provide some significant relief to numerous cities that currently face intractable, debilitating and growth-limiting congestion delay and air/noise problems with minimal cost and energy requirements. Considerable engineering work has been done, making a near-term development and testing project both feasible and desirable. Your support of such an effort would be greatly appreciated by all who wish to make our cities both greener and more livable while combating global warming trends.

S/Jerry Schneider
Professor Emeritus, U of Washington, Seattle
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

Giants Behind Project 21

2008-05-18T22:00:00.003-04:00

Take a MiniTrip on Monobeam

2008-05-18T21:00:00.001-04:00

Enjoy a guided tour of the monobeam technology by clicking here.

2008-05-16T13:58:00.005-04:00

Branches For Two-Way Traffic (Update)

2008-05-15T16:33:00.009-04:00

If it can't really provide broad and fine-grained service throughout a metropolitan area, a mass-transit system is far from ideal. Buses can do that but they are so slow that anyone who can afford a car avoids them like the plague. Subways/Metros are faster and more popular but, because of their enormous cost, they are not fine-grained and never will be. Streetcars did it well a century ago, but autos drove them off the streets.

How did streetcars do it? In addition to their relatively low cost, they provided two-way traffic on the same street -- and, like any network, they had branches. Here is a map of the trolley system that organized and populated the Los Angeles region before cars took over.Some of it was single-track, but the busier portions were two-track, and there were more branches radiating out from the several hubs than you can count.

But providing branches for two-way traffic poses a tremendous challenge. Freeways face the problem too; they solve it with an overpass, which gobbles up a lot of acreage as well as money.

Now let's examine the classical problem for branches in two-way transit lines.

Leaving A on the trunk line, trains can go either way at the diverge switch. One setting leads to B, the other leads to C.

Returning from B or C, lines must merge at switch Y. Here, time-sharing (with an occasional stop) is inevitable. As at freeway merges, there is no alternative.
Look closer at X, where two paths cross. Railroads install small, inert metal "frogs" here, with no moving parts. Monorails could also cross here, but their geometry would demand a controllable pivoting piece. In either technology, trains from B could collide with those headed to C. Sometimes one train must stop at X and wait while the other passes through.

Not so for Rapid Transit, e.g. Metros and subways. At X the two paths are grade-separated, as at a freeway overpass, so collisions are impossible and no one ever has to wait at X. But the cost is awesome, especially because it's all under-ground. Uniquely, Project 21's branching feature boasts similar grade separation but, as seen in the video, with astonishingly low overhead bulk. Believe it or not, both diverge and merge switches fit onto the same factory-built module. Plus, the staggering cost of underground construction is completely avoided.

In all the world, no other two-way aerial branch is half this compact or simple. To my knowledge, the closest existing approach is the monorail in Jacksonville, Florida. They didn't try for grade separation at X but installed a movable frog instead. These two photos show it in its two modes.
With that bulk and complexity (and cost), you can see that such an arrangement wouldn't be acceptable for a network.

This is the main reason why Project 21 functions like Rapid Transit and constitutes a world-class breakthrough, compact enough and inexpensive enough to allow widespread networks of two-way traffic above city streets for the first time in ages.

As Advertised In The Washington Post...

2007-09-27T23:59:00.000-04:00

Click on picture to enlarge & expand

Why All The Emphasis On Branches?

2007-08-15T12:13:00.002-04:00

For widespread service in a city or metropolis, it is almost mandatory to arrange the mass transit to focus on one or a few central nodes or hubs, locally thought of as "downtown." Transit lines radiate from there, like spokes of a wheel. Southern California famously spread out from Los Angeles in this fashion, in the early 1900s.

Here is a map of Southern California's Pacific Electric system, which started small but grew to include secondary hubs in Long Beach, Pasadena, and San Bernardino. It become the largest "trolley" complex in the world – with nearly 1,200 miles of line, much of it double-track – and with nearly as many scheduled stops. There must be nearly 100 branches in this 1925 map:

Click to enlarge

Autos increased the spread, of course, and filled in gaps among population centers. But, as noted elsewhere, it turned out that autos demanded so many (branching) freeways and parking lots that the same region switched its focus back to rail.

Today, in nearly every city of the developed world, streets and highways demand top priority at ground level. Such thoroughfares must also serve trucks, the lifeblood of goods distribution. With subways prohibitively expensive, and buses slow and unpopular, affordable mass transit – the only remaining alternative to autos in the city – simply must be overhead.

Monorails were thought to be the answer; they're sleek and relatively inoffensive. But, as proven again in Las Vegas and Seattle, their two-way lines can't radiate in multiple directions from downtown because they can't branch out. A separate article on this site explains that problem with a diagram, and discusses the few exceptions that only a mother could love.

So there is a tremendous unfulfilled need: aerial mass transit that can radiate out and branch out from downtown hubs. That is exactly what the System 21 monobeam is designed to do, and proved it could do so in 1996. And that is why this particular system was strongly recommended in two landmark books and praised in testimonials by the best of the best in technology and urban planning.

*Exception: there will be occasional tunnels through a major hill or under a major river. Even there, the triangular geometry is advantageous.

"1.1 Billion More Cars!"

2007-08-01T11:52:00.005-04:00

Clashing Goals for 2050

2007-08-01T11:00:00.001-04:00

Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are hogging the spotlight these days. Opinions are converging to some degree on how much they must be reduced, and by when -- but there is virtually no agreement on how to achieve such reductions.

On the one hand, there are promises/goals/commitments to cut emissions by 2050. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, reported that prospects are so serious that GHG must be cut by 80% by that date, and it chose 1990 as the reference point. The recent G-8 conference could only agree on 50% reduction in 2050 with no specific baseline; and that was just a goal. Earlier, the European Union set a worldwide goal of 60% decrease by 2050, with 1990 as the baseline; and, recognizing that emerging nations need more latitude, it called for an 80% reduction by industrialized nations.

On the other hand, it is well established that autos are second only to coal-fired power plants as the source of today's GHG. And it is predicted that China and India will add over a billion cars in 2050 -- more than there are in the entire world today! This is credible when China declares new highways a top national priority and India's biggest conglomerate introduces a new car selling for just $2500.

A recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times focused on the trend in India and pleaded for them NOT to emulate the USA. Rather, he urges them to introduce drastically better mass transit, "leapfrogging" American technology as they have already done with cell phones. That ties in nicely with our claim that Project 21 could avoid hundreds of millions of cars in China and India. As a bonus, it would do a lot for their miserable street congestion and local air pollution.

World-Class Leadership

2007-07-31T12:03:00.003-04:00

Is there any basis for claiming that Project 21 could soon dominate the world market for aerial transit? Yes, there is. Consider the history of the PCC Car.

That is the name of a standard streetcar design introduced here in the late 1930s, and soon reproduced in many foreign nations. To quote an excellent article in Wikipedia:

The design proved successful . . . and after World War II was licensed for use elsewhere in the world. The PCC car has proved to be a longlasting icon of streetcar design, and PCC cars are still in service in various places around the world . . . Thousands more PCC cars and direct descendants were produced in Europe through the 20th century.

Some 5,000 were built in the US and they were the streetcar in most American cities until the 1950s, when they were progressively displaced by buses – a push blamed on GM in court. Even today refurbished PCC cars are running in Boston, San Francisco, and Philadelphia; and "nostalgia" lines exist in several other cities.

How many foreign cars were made is unclear, but nearly 14,000 were built by a single licensee in Poland!

So what?

Our Monobeam was conceived over 30 years ago to be an off-the-street streetcar, recognizing that

Similar, widespread service is dearly needed. Buses are slow and unpopular.
The only realistic placement is elevated. Subway costs are prohibitive.
This means aerial networks. That demands a breakthrough switch, which in turn requires familiar steel-on-steel technology.
Infrastructure must be even more compact and unobtrusive than monorails.
Prefabricated modules can assure low cost and quick installation.
Small trains with a friendly operator can preserve popularity and safety.

Design under these principles continued until 1996, when it was all demonstrated. Hence the testimonials of four men who are (or were) at the pinnacle of their professions, and a great editorial in Architectural Record.

In 1935, the various streetcars around the globe were expensive, unreliable, and performed poorly. The PCC fixed all that and assumed leadership of the world. Now streetcars are rare, and unwelcome on the streets. So once again a "dramatic new perspective" is needed. Project 21, already researched, is ready to go. Will we just do it?

The Elephant In The Living Room

2007-07-18T23:24:00.001-04:00

CHINA. Recent news indicates that:

On the list of World cities with the worst air pollution, China has four of the ten.
Every year, some 700,000 die from toxic air and water pollution. It shut down a newssheet that tried to publicize this.
It has "people moving---in great droves into already overcrowded cities."
It overruled its environmental protection agency, saying their deadline for tighter emissions is impractical.
It has smokestack scrubbers that lie idle because they cost too much to run.
There are National regulations that corrupt local officials decline to enforce.
It is now passing the US as the #1 source of CO2.
24,000 new cars, trucks and buses hit Chinese roads every day.
This adds to world oil demand, boosting our own costs.
With India, it is predicted to have 1,100,000,000 autos by 2050. That is more than in the entire world today.

But on the positive side,

"100 million tons of CO2 are saved annually by co-generating plants in China."
China has good rockets and contemplates sending men to the moon.
They can adopt others' technology quickly, but don't invent the breakthroughs.
It has the world's only operational Maglev super-speed train, at enormous cost.
-- and is serious about extending that line soon.

From which one might conclude that:

China values progress, regardless of environmental effects.
It will stay that way. Forget the Kyoto protocol on emissions.
It could become world leader in mass transit.
Getting them to adopt Project 21 could happen soon, and might avoid hundreds of millions of additional autos fouling the globe's air.

Why Our Monobeam Is So Important

2007-07-13T13:44:00.001-04:00

If American cities aren't to suffer the worsening consequences of autos, there must be excellent mass transit: widespread, faster than street traffic, attractive, and affordable. Subways work well, but now cost far over $100 Million a mile, so they aren't widespread and never will be. That leaves elevated mass transit, but (except for Japan) none has been installed in central areas since the tracks in Manhattan were torn down 50 years ago.

The monorail in Las Vegas might be an exception, but it wasn't placed above the most desirable avenue. Its high cost and low ridership now threaten bankruptcy.

This article undertakes to explain how and why our monobeam is an urgently needed, world-class breakthrough. But it must start with the basics and talk candidly about monorails. Don't go away.

Tracks

Tracks for a train must do all the following; the monorail's guideway must do the same:

• Support the train.
• Guide the train. Precisely.
• Keep the train upright and, if it speeds through curves, make it tilt just right for passenger comfort.
• Be extraordinarily reliable, rugged, durable.
• AND never, ever, fail. Lives could be lost.

Monorails

The very first monorail, a century ago, hung from a single rail; hence the name. Like a pendulum, cars swung out just right in curves. With dual rails for two-way traffic, it has served well for 105 years with never a passenger fatality. But that German monorail's switching arrangement defies description, and monorail switches continue to be a formidable challenge. (More later.)

Subsequent monorails continue above street level, and now have rubber tires. Today they come in a range of sizes; I'll focus on those large enough to carry thousands of passengers (per direction) each hour and are contenders in the enormous urban mass-transit market. All have multiple cars coupled together in a train, generally like those in Disney World or Vegas. Guideways are normally a pair of massive concrete beams, one for each direction, about 12 feet apart.

Now, a monorail switch for one-way traffic is possible with a special combination of guideway elements, typically at least 50 feet long and weighing tons. Not simple. But it's still tougher when switching is wanted for two-way traffic above the same city street. The problem, diagrammed elsewhere, is that one of the first line's diverging paths inevitably meets and must cross one path of the second line. Often a train on one of the lines must stop and wait while another train rumbles through. With red lights and stern discipline, the result is reasonably safe, but passengers don't appreciate the wasted time. Simply put, that intersection can never serve both lines at once. It's strictly either/or.

However, switching for two-way monorails has been installed a few places in the world. The only one I know of in the US is in Jacksonville and illustrated below. A small train rolling westward will continue West or turn South depending on how that switch is set by Central Control. In the first picture a switch is set to diverge South, and you can see that a movable piece of guideway is set to let this train cross the path of any train coming toward us from the West. (Railroad men call that piece "an active frog.")

When this same train returns from the South, it must merge into the Eastbound line, which requires that the long curved member in the foreground be swung into place. That is done by resting it on rugged cross-tracks with a powerful machine, not visible here, to force it back and forth. Note also the power strips alongside the same member, which must mate perfectly when the shift takes place.

The second picture shows how the same switch complex takes care of a train returning from the West. The frog piece has been repositioned to point East-West and is supporting the train right now. Whenever a train wants to pass through going West, the far (straight) member swings into line and the curved member there is parked between the two lines. That requires another set of rugged cross-tracks, another powerful machine, and additional power lines to match up.

Maybe this explains why such cumbersome, expensive branching arrangements for dual lines of elevated transit are rare indeed. Other solutions are equally complex, and still can't serve both branches at once. That's the state-of-the-art today. We have walked you through all this so you can appreciate how huge an advance our monobeam will be.

Rail Rapid Transit

The classical form of urban mass transit, generally called subway or Metro, nearly always employs steel-wheel-on-steel-rail and its switches are much simpler because that little flange on its wheel affords guidance that rubber tires just can't. (Steel is many times as efficient, too, because its rolling friction is vastly lower.)

How do Metros allow branching of dual lines without the delay and hazard just covered? That is easy to describe, very expensive to accomplish. They simply make one path cross above or below the other. The term is grade separation, and you see the same thing every day where one freeway route branches into two. It's called an overpass. That, too, costs a bundle and consumes some acreage -- but it is safe and does the job without delaying anyone.

These Metro branches typically entail staggering cost and take up a lot of space, but they are always out of sight, buried underground. That takes a couple of years, but there's no realistic alternative. Again, a safe solution that does the job.

So what?

Now the stage is set to appreciate what a difference our monobeam can make. The monobeam packs two switches and their operating mechanisms into a single steel module, compact enough to build in a factory and to ship out on a single flat car. Those two switches achieve grade separation too, like Metros, to avoid the Jacksonville complexity and delay. Validity of our detail design was established by the 1996 demonstration; the video makes that abundantly clear. And it was observed first-hand by two Secretaries of USDOT as well as their engineers and dozens of other dignitaries.

This configuration was analyzed by two of the nation's foremost engineers (see Giants under Key people) and two of the foremost Urban planners; their letters are in the Testimonials section.

Four of those kudos are dated 1998 or earlier. The fifth, by Prof. Jerry Schneider, probably the best-informed expert on current innovations in transportation, attests that our monobeam is still unique in the world. Its technology has never been faulted and no alternative allows branches for lack of practical switching.

Bottom line

To free cities from addiction to autos and oil, better mass transit is mandatory: more ubiquitous, more attractive, much lower in capital cost, and installable in weeks rather than years. Faster than street traffic, too. That is what monorails seemed to promise, but they fell short by several measures. Our monobeam avoids those pitfalls and is the world's only remaining candidate to satisfy such formidable requirements. Years of additional research aren't needed; outstanding authorities affirm that milestone has already been passed. This monobeam is ready to proceed into full-scale development, and my own record as a leader of two historical breakthroughs, praised by Presidents, suggests that it can get into mass production quickly. Only then can aerial transit begin to heal the climate.

What might you do? First, contact your Senators and Representative, asking them not to propose time-consuming Federal outlays in this field. Instead, urge them to initiate a Resolution to prevent Federal bureaucrats from launching alternative research and development that only waste time and your taxes. Second, if you have access to a billionaire or major corporation that could commit the $75 Million or so to buy out Futrex, demonstrate the system, and launch a profitable, world-dominating industry -- then call their attention to this system. We'll be glad to work with them.

Finally, even if this monobeam is never installed in American cities, remember the prediction that China and India will have 1,100,000,000 more autos by 2050. Consider what that would do to the atmosphere no one can live without. We Americans must somehow dissuade them from repeating our mistakes, or our offspring are toast.

Al Gore Visits Quarter-Scale Demo

2007-07-07T23:53:00.003-04:00

Click picture to enlarge

Lead Car

2007-07-06T23:59:00.005-04:00

Notice the friendly, accessible operator up front. Side doors open at the station. The rear door stays open if there is another car coupled behind.

Section

2007-07-06T23:58:00.005-04:00

Poles serve standees, support seats, and stabilize the roof. Side seats flip up to make space for wheelchairs. Inboard windows enable seated passengers to see out over the guideway, and hinge outward for emergency egress to a train on the "other side."

Outrigger Close-Up

2007-07-06T23:57:00.001-04:00

An outrigger has four 6-inch-diameter rollers above the rail and four more below. It flexes at curves and attaches to the car-side via curved tracks that allow the outrigger to swing overhead at stations. All of this was demonstrated in 1996.

Basic Station

2007-07-06T23:56:00.002-04:00

This is the basic station, for downtown and major centers. A mini-station for suburbs appears below.

Side View

2007-07-06T23:55:00.006-04:00

Click to enlarge

This emphasizes the interior of the upper level, with seats, stair railings, and doors to the train. Also the liberal space at ground level, with a turnstile at the stair and a newsstand under the stair.

The drawing is reasonably accurate except that the elevator's doors aren't located per the current design.

Branches For Two-Way Traffic

2007-07-06T23:55:00.005-04:00

This diagrams the classical problem for branches in two-way transit lines.

Leaving A on the trunk line, trains can go either way at the diverge switch, which is usually set by Central Control. One setting leads to B, the other leads to C.

Returning from B or C, lines must merge at switch Y, which may be self-setting. Here, time-sharing (with occasional stops) is inevitable. That's just the way it is.

Now let's look at X, where two paths cross. Traditional railroads install an inert metal "frog" here, with crossing grooves to receive the flanges of steel wheels. Monorails also cross here, but their geometry demands a small pivoting piece, which may also be self-setting. In either technology, trains from B could conflict with those headed to C. So there is hazard, and sometimes one train must stop right there and wait while the other passes through.

Not so for Rail Rapid Transit.* At X the two paths are grade-separated, i.e. separated vertically, so collisions are impossible and no one ever has to wait. But the cost is awesome, especially because it's all underground and X is approached at a moderate grade, like 4%.

Our monobeam boasts the same grade separation but at a bargain price. For compact-ness, we approach X on a 10% grade, and both switches fit onto the same factory-built module. Plus, the staggering cost of underground construction is completely eliminated.
___________

* Rail Rapid Transit is the standard term among technical guys. The popular terms are Metro, Subway, BART, etc. All maximize safety with no interruption between stations (except at Y).

Sections

2007-07-06T23:54:00.005-04:00

This is what you see at a stairway, and at the 18-passenger elevator. Distance across curbs may be increased to 12 feet to allow more for overhanging truck-beds. Any truck over 13.5 feet tall must get a special permit that restricts where it can go.

Interior

2007-07-06T23:53:00.002-04:00

The basic station is sized to match trains up to four cars with maximum capacity just over 200 passengers. The elevator holds up to 18, and is centrally placed to avoid muggers. There are two stairways, reflecting current safety standards, which rise only about as much as two levels in your home. (Monorails typically match three levels -- due to their support/suspension geometry -- and guarantee that most folks will crowd into the elevator.)

Generous overhead lights alternate with AC outlets. Signs over the doors inform passengers as to the destination and countdown-to-arrival of the next train, as well as (for shorter trains) which doors will open. Those floor panels are 4x8 feet.

Ministation With 2 Elevators

2007-07-06T23:52:00.001-04:00

This is a ministation, right for low-density neighborhoods where just a handful of commuters normally board a given train. (Trains arrive every two to three minutes.) Compared to downtown stations, which are over a hundred feet long, this station costs a lot less, and is much more welcome in a community.

This baby has no elevated "waiting room." Passengers wait (under a roof) on the ground, and enter the medium-size elevator when they see a train approaching. The train's operator opens doors of one or two cars, as needed, while commanding the matching elevator doors.

Branch

2007-07-06T23:51:00.003-04:00

Click to enlarge

Here is the grade-separated branch that allows aerial networks. No other system in the world, existing or proposed, is anything like it. Transit experts wouldn't believe until it was demonstrated (see video).

Here a train is approaching the merge switch from a two-way branch line. In the foreground, another train has passed through the diverge switch and continues along the main line. Monorails can't turn nearly this sharp, so they just don't fit above downtown streets.

"Off-Line" Station

2007-07-06T23:51:00.002-04:00

Really good Metro systems have off-line stations, where local trains stop and express trains sail right by. That's what this arrangement allows. Skillful timing of the trains can yield line capacity approaching 20,000 passengers per hour in each direction. That's more than is found anywhere in the nation, except New York City. (This needs verification.)

Grade Separation

2007-07-06T23:50:00.001-04:00

This arrangement is like the time-honored railroad switch, but tilted up to reduce width and to start the vertical displacement for grade separation. Recognizing this was the "EUREKA MOMENT" for the entire monobeam system.

Branch Module

2007-07-06T23:49:00.001-04:00

This prefabricated steel module has two switches back-to-back with the operating mechanism inside. At 11 x 13 x 76 feet and weighing 30 tons, it is delivered on a railroad flatcar. The upper and lower rails are fixed from A to B and flex from B to C. At D there is a nine-foot-long "rotor": you can see it change tracks if you watch the video closely. Rotation takes only a couple of seconds.

Monobeam vs. Alternatives

2007-07-06T23:48:00.004-04:00

This contrasts monobeam with the guideway of the popular system in Vancouver, B.C. A big difference in view blockage, sun on the street, snow to clear, and rain for grass in the median.

Over & Under!

2007-07-06T23:48:00.003-04:00

This one shot underlines the crucial advantage of grade separation. The upper train is curving to its left with no concern whether another train on the opposite line is speeding underneath. And vice versa. Collisions here are physically impossible.

From Landmark Book

2007-07-06T23:47:00.010-04:00

Click picture to enlarge

This page is from the book Public Transportation & Land Use Policy by the esteemed Regional Plan Association, largely funded by U.S. DOT. Its caption includes:

"An ingenious proposal for a dramatic reduction in guideway dimensions and cost is also shown here."

"The system offers grade-separated guideway transit to smaller cities which could not afford it otherwise."

Jacksonville Skyway Branch

2007-07-06T23:47:00.006-04:00

Compared with Leading People-Movers

2007-07-06T23:46:00.001-04:00

Compared with Better-Known Systems

2007-07-06T23:45:00.004-04:00

BART is San Francisco's Metro. LRT is elevated light rail, like the one nearly finished to SeaTac airport. But this omits the overhead electrical clutter, shown on the Japanese slide. ALWEG is the first full-scale monorail in the US, the 1962 Seattle Monorail, never repeated except in Asia. It was slimmed down somewhat for Disney World.

90-Foot Turn

2007-07-06T23:45:00.003-04:00

The extraordinary strength and torsional rigidity of the monobeam's triangular section allows this pristine appearance. The ability to increase beam depth some 6 inches -- in sync with a small rise of the outrigger -- helps, too.

Compared with Japanese Systems

2007-07-06T23:44:00.003-04:00

Expansion Joint

2007-07-06T23:44:00.002-04:00

Beams arrive at the site with power conductors and rails already installed. But thermal expansion/contraction will shift these two beams relative to each other, and alignment can't be absolutely perfect. A small insert, from A to A, provides for that and minimizes wheel-click at this joint. This also details the beam-to-column interface.

Column & Base

2007-07-06T23:43:00.001-04:00

A concrete pad atop its foundation (not shown) rises 6 to 18 inches above the median. The prefabricated column is of welded steel plate with a cast-steel base. An optional concrete "Planter" (see see photos below) can fortify the base for extra protection against speeding trucks.

Let It Snow!

2007-07-06T23:42:00.000-04:00

Click to enlarge

The guard up there collects typical snow and ice, which can remain until it melts. (Birds or twigs can't mess up the rails, either.) In a heavy winter storm, a little snow or ice will try to collect above the lower rail, but the customary practice of running a train every half-hour during the night can keep the rail clear. Decades of experience prove that ice can't degrade the steel-wheel-to-rail interface, even on a considerable grade; it just cracks away and leaves the railhead extra clean. Expected result: service as always during storms with virtually no maintenance personnel needed.

Page From "Urban Rail In America"

2007-07-06T23:41:00.005-04:00

Car To Guideway

2007-07-06T23:41:00.003-04:00

Main suspension and propulsion elements are shown in color. The motor, red, drives a gear train and the inclined wheel, blue. The outrigger pulls at the top rail to keep the car erect. In this combination, 122 percent of the car's weight goes down thru two powered wheels to the lower rail, assuring extra traction and unique ability to climb 10% grades.

Top Rail & Outrigger

2007-07-06T23:40:00.001-04:00

The red blob is a 2.25-inch copper conductor large enough to employ 750V power substations about three miles apart. It is protected inside the massive steel pipe. Smaller red conductors, nearly surrounded by insulation, distribute power to each train. This "under-running third rail" applies the very best rail transit practice. The aluminum guard is discussed elsewhere.

Outrigger details at the right are for discussion with specialists, but notice that the steel outrigger frame encircling the railhead couldn't come loose even if all the rollers should fail. Other views of the outrigger are in the "car" group of pictures.

Car To Station (Section)

2007-07-06T23:39:00.001-04:00

Here you see "all" of the car and part of the station with its overhang to protect critical hardware. The outrigger rose gently as the train slowed to a stop. The hook-shaped detail, called the "power mast," is a steel tube protecting the power feed.

Passageway At Station

2007-07-06T23:38:00.002-04:00

The station has sliding, bi-parting doors; one panel is seen here. That's not a live conductor overhead; instead, it's a harmless dummy for this immediate area. Half of the bi-parting car door is also shown; it consists of two hinged panels. Doors are 6'4" high. At extreme right, standee pole supports a seat.

Emergency Egress

2007-07-06T23:37:00.001-04:00

Here the operator has coupled his stalled train to a receiving train, and lowered a panel to form a walkway. This escape process, while feasible, has been replaced by still better designs and procedures. Three avenues of escape to another train have been defined. Two of them were patented.

About Transit Networks

2007-06-10T13:51:00.001-04:00

Everyone understands and uses highway overpasses, but seldom consider why such expensive, land-consuming structures are necessary. In a nutshell, they provide grade separation between crossing paths to avoid the delays and occasional collisions of an ordinary street intersection.

Grade separation simply means that potential conflicts are avoided by making one path or route rise up to cross above the other. When a dual -- i.e. two-way -- path crosses, or simply diverges from, another dual path, somebody has to make a left turn and grade separation is the only way to assure safe, continuous flow for everyone.

Click to enlarge

Regional transit systems must include networks. But networks need branches for two-way traffic. (A tree without branches would be pretty useless.) And in rail transit, branches need switches plus grade separation.

Monorails and elevated rail systems almost never have branches. So they are found only in loops or in single lines -- often contorted lines to connect all the dots. (Seattle recently tried to build one, but the projected cost soared out of sight and it was canceled.) The real problem is that there has never been a compact, inexpensive way to "branch out." The one branch in Disney parks occupies several acres; the lone elevated one for American "subways" is in Brooklyn, huge and hideous. The Chicago El has branches above the Loop, but they are bulky eyesores and still lack grade separation, so collisions can happen and delays are inevitable. The El is not true Rapid Transit. Every modern subway or "Metro" has safe branches, but those branches are always underground, huge and three-dimensional-- but placed out of sight at enormous cost.

This is why MONOBEAM remains a world-class breakthrough. Its simple method of grade-separated branching, further illustrated herein, is unprecedented and still not copied anywhere in the world. Allowing affordable aerial networks, Monobeam can be the basis for an international, cutting-edge industry in America, and a very profitable one because it is so simple. Even the dual switch can be factory-built and shipped on a freight car!

Railway Age Editorial

2007-06-10T13:50:00.001-04:00

The following editorial was published in Railway Age, which has been the pillar of the railway industry for over a century.

Click picture to enlarge

John P. Keith, Past President, Regional Plan Assn.

2007-06-10T13:47:00.001-04:00

Click to enlarge Click to enlarge

Dr. Paul B. MacCready, Celebrated Innovator

2007-06-10T13:46:00.003-04:00

Dr. MacCready was anointed "Engineer of the Century" by the ASME after he developed and demonstrated history's first human-powered aircraft, now hanging in the Smithsonian.

Click picture to enlarge

Testimonial by Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic

2007-06-10T13:45:00.006-04:00

Here are scans of a letter from Dr. Vukan R. Vuchic, the eminent engineering professor and author.

Click to enlarge

Why System 21? - By Boris S. Pushkarev

2007-06-10T13:44:00.000-04:00

Click to enlargeClick to enlarge Click to enlarge

Editorial in the Architectural Record

2007-06-10T12:02:00.002-04:00

The following editorial appeared in the Architectural Record in July of 1997.

Click picture to enlarge

Frequently Asked Questions

2007-06-09T16:01:00.010-04:00

Q: When most electricity comes from "dirty" coal, is Project 21 any better in terms of greenhouse emissions than autos?

A: YES, a whole lot better. It is generally conceded that electric autos can save a third or more of emissions compared to conventional cars, even with "dirty" coal. If they ever become practical, all-electric autos will carry up to five passengers with 100 to 140 horsepower.
But Project 21 can carry up to 50 people per vehicle with no more than 200 hp. That's better by a factor of 5 to 7 compared to a pure-electric auto and more like 7 to 10 compared to a gas-fueled "economy" car.

Q: That outrigger looks sort of tricky. What makes it go up and down?

A: It just "follows the beam." As the upper rail rises, e.g. approaching a station, it pulls the outrigger along. That's why the outrigger attaches to the car on a particular radius; the effect is that the outrigger is equally "comfortable" with any vertical position.

Q: What about hurricanes? And earthquakes?

A: Conditions for the standard guideway design include 40 psf (about a 120-mph gust) and 0.5 G in an earthquake with a crush-loaded 4-car train on one side. Or 0.3 G with such trains on both sides. All using extra-tall columns. That should be OK for 95% of all American cities; for the others, columns might have to be made-to-order. Foundations, like tall buildings, are always designed for the predicted conditions in that city.

Q: What makes you think your steel wheels can climb 10% grades?

A: Grades up to 12% exist today for streetcars in Lisbon and did exist for decades in Pittsburg. (But going downhill is pretty scary.) Our unique suspension geometry puts 122% of the vehicle weight down through the main wheels, so we have a 22% advantage over the best present practice in both traction and braking. Actually, we should be able to tackle 12% grades after gaining practical experience at 10%.

Q: Will it be noisy?

A: It is true that rail systems can make too much noise, particularly the wheel click when there is a track joint every 80 feet or so. We need such joints to allow completion of 84-foot beams in the factory, and to permit overnight replacement of a beam damaged by an oversize truck. Three measures to minimize noise are integral in our design:

1. A rubber ring just inside the rim of a streetcar wheel was developed a generation ago and has helped a lot. We arranged with the manufacturer to adapt that feature in our wheel.

2. The small insert shown in the Expansion Joint picture is carefully designed so that wheels rolling forward step down 0.01 inch or less at each end of the insert. Reverse running takes place only at low speed.

3. The final design provides for rubber in anchoring the beams atop the column. This detail is too small to show in the picture named above.

With these measures, I am reasonably confident that noise will be acceptably low. But if still more suppression is needed -- maybe in front of a church -- soft insulation, like that under your car's hood, can be cemented inside the webs of the beam.

Q: What about emergency escape? Aren't there all kinds of regulations?

A: Not a huge problem, I believe. Recently I spent over an hour with one of the foremost rapid transit authorities on this subject. He noted first that the ASCE's people-mover standards don't apply at all to systems with an operator in the train. I favor operators because they can calm and inform the passengers when, not if, there is a breakdown or other contingency. And they would initiate and supervise the exodus if that's indicated. Also, people liked the friendly operators of the streetcars.

The other agency that has purview in this subject is NFPA, the National Fire Protection Association. I understood the gentleman to say that NFPA mainly requires that there be formal emergency plans that satisfy the local Fire Chief. Some of those officials settle for cherry-pickers, ladders, or airline-style chutes that leave both of us a little dubious. I prefer (1) making everything in the train really fire-proof so that the train's only combustibles are what the passengers bring on board* -- he seemed to like that, and (2) providing for a nearby train to come to the rescue from any of three directions. That includes a train pulling up on the other side of the beam. Thus four-car trains would have up to eight simultaneous exit paths created by hinging down the inboard windows. Passengers crawling across that level 5-foot stretch couldn't see below or even be reminded if they were above the Golden Gate! Wouldn't that solution be better than forcing passengers (some with kids) to climb onto an unsheltered walkway on a stormy night -- maybe half-a-mile from a station?

*The only fire on the Disney World monorail, to my knowledge, started in a rubber tire. and spread due to combustibles directly above. With steel wheels, and virtually everything fireproof, we think we have a good case.

Mouton's Model For APTA Conference

2007-06-09T12:00:00.008-04:00

William J. Mouton, Tulane professor of Architecture, joined our effort in 1988; I contacted him because he was celebrated for showing how his deep foundation design could allow New Orleans to have skyscrapers just like other cities. Soon he and his students built this scale model, a hit near the front door of a national transit conference. Later, Bill designed and built a model of our station, shown elsewhere.

Article From Engineering News Record

2007-06-08T12:00:00.004-04:00

The following article from the Engineering News Record was published subsequent to the successful demonstration of the quarter-scale model monobeam system.

Click picture to enlarge

Monobeam Summary Card

2007-06-08T10:06:00.003-04:00

Monobeam MiniTrip

2007-06-07T13:04:00.014-04:00

Now let's take a quick trip. We start at this nearby station, which stands easily above a 12-foot-wide median in any street or boulevard.
Looking from the side we see two stairways, an elevator, and a man at the ticket machine. The upper level has four doors on each side, to receive four-car trains. These short trains let the station be only a quarter as long as a standard Metro station.Having paid our fare, we can choose the stairs for the exercise, or take the 18-passenger elevator.Inside the air-conditioned enclosure, there are few seats because the next train will be here in two to five minutes. In off-hours, it is just one car, and overhead signs tell which door will open.
The man is studying the train's suspension as it stops. There is a steel wheel below and a novel "outrigger" above to stabilize the train.
Now the doors open and here is the passageway, 54 inches wide. The overhanging roof is a rain shelter. One of the outriggers is seen up ahead.There are seats for 22 with a good view outdoors. Note the friendly operator up front. The rear door would be open if a second car were coupled behind.
There is reasonable space for another 20 standees, but up to 30 is allowable. A compartment beyond the side-facing seats encloses the mechanical stuff.As our train leaves the station, the beam tapers to resume its normal, compact section. You can see that a car has two outriggers, each having rollers along the track.This is a greatly enlarged section through the outrigger and upper track. There are four, 6-inch-diameter rollers above the rail and four more below. The dark frame encircles the railhead so that even if all rollers failed, the outrigger still can't let go. The red blob buried in the beam brings 750-volt power from substations placed about three miles apart.And here you see the outrigger's attachment to the car in a manner allowing the beam to be only five feet high whereas the rail was overhead at the station. Also shown is the red motor and the blue "truck", a combination gearbox and inclined wheel.The steel columns are only half as wide as those for the Seattle Monorail. If they must be protected against attack by errant trucks, concrete planters can encircle them as shown in some photos.This shows how the tight radius you saw in the video permits two-way traffic to enter relatively narrow cross-streets. No existing form of aerial transit can match that.

And here is our switching invention in the urban context. A train from the side street is approaching the far switch (not visible here), while a second train continues on the trunk line after passing through the near switch.Above all, our geometry lets a train from the far line rise and curve over the near line, yielding the same safety and freedom between opposite lines that are the buried secret of a Metro. No aerial system in the world has done this above city streets for nearly a century – and this is why our monobeam is a world-class breakthrough.