Why is it so hard to discuss new transportation technologies?

In this post we want to raise this crucial question on the development of  transportation technology. We do it in English also to embrace participants at the Seventh Podcar City Conference in Washington DC (23-25 October).

We are of course aware that our proposal to develop a General Transportation System (GTS) with new but mostly acknowledged technology meets resistance – as all major changes do. Still we are amazed at the compact silence that characterizes the non-response  by many stakeholders, decision-makers and even journalists. The GTS concept has gradually evolved over the years just to meet virtually any deficiencies of old transportation technologies, primarily road and rail. The GTS concept has also changed from being a PRT (personal rapid transit) for very limited transportation services to an open system that could compete with the old modes throughout most of the market.

GTS is characterized by an energy use that is about one tenth of current road traffic, with minimal greenhouse gas emissions and noise. Journey times will be cut in half, and we expect a ninety percent reduction in injuries and fatalities. GTS will be useful for almost everyone regardless of disability, age, driving license and service all around the clock. GTS can also provide most of the goods transport required.

Should not our claims be worth responding by those responsible for investment in transportation infrastructure with trillions of crowns, euro, dollar, pound, ruble, dinar, rupee or yuan in the whole world? From our Swedish perspective, we know that there are obvious shortcomings in the fulfillment of our traffic policy goals, despite our huge investments, but those responsible do not act or comment. The Emperor is naked. A Swedish minister spoke loosely a few years ago about Norway as the last Soviet state. But the question here is whether or not the claim also applies to Sweden and most of the transportation dependent world as there is a lot of concealment shrouding the embarrassing flaws of transportation business.

Let us calmly trying to sort out what the hush up possibly can depend on
• Are there vested interests that stop discussion?
• Do we have a more conservative approach to traffic engineering than e.g. IT?
• Are there other breaking technological developments which are better?
• Is it too hard to explain and visualize new ideas in transportation?
• Is there a lack of venture capital in the transportation sector (compare with IT)?
• Is the car good enough?
• Is public transit good enough?
• Should we reduce transportation, rather than create a new technology?

We are very curious about your viewpoints in this matter. Please feel free to comment either in English or Swedish.

Kjell Dahlström and Jan-Erik Nowacki