[Sosfbay-discuss] Letter on PRT published in the Milpitas Post

[Rob Means]

Letters to the editor for the week of Sept. 17, 2009
Letter to the Editor
Posted: 09/16/2009 02:45:34 PM PDT

Get on the PRT

Dear Editor,

After reading Mr. Ruth's letter in last week's Post, I thought to myself
"Get that man on the PRT team!" Every good team needs a Devil's
advocate. Mr. Ruth is asking the right questions. Some of them are
answered online at http:// snipurl.com/rqoiw.

Among the issues raised by Mr. Ruth is "visual intrusion." As technology
has evolved, we have introduced various forms of "visual intrusion"
including telegraph lines, railroad lines, overhead telephone and power
wires, roads, freeways, airports and elevated LRT lines. (The intrusion
of the road in front of my home goes beyond the mere visual when a
stinking diesel-powered truck drives past leaving a deadly plume of
stench behind.)

Because a PRT guideway is relatively small (about 3 feet by 3 feet) and
routing is very flexible, many locations can be found in Milpitas where
the visual intrusion is offset by the value it provides the neighborhood
through which it runs.

Mr. Ruth also comments, "In my research, the overriding issue is cost."
In my many years of study and experience, the overriding issue is
politics. Most politicians and organizations are quite conservative and
won't do something unless others have already done it. Thus we have our
chicken-and-egg problem: cities are willing to consider PRT after others
have done it first, but no city wants to be first.

Cost isn't really an issue for those of us who can count. For example,
light rail (LRT) currently costs
Advertisement
Click Here!
about $60 million per bi-directional (both ways) mile, while PRT appears
to cost about $20 million per bi-directional mile. If, VTA had spent
their money on PRT to move people around instead of LRT, we could have
three times as many transit miles enough to include a loop that serves
the Sunnyhills neighborhood.

Many in that neighborhood must rely on infrequent and intermittent bus
service to access regional transit (LRT and proposed BART) three miles
away.

Cost isn't really an issue for the proposed railroad crossing either.
Years ago, VTA offered us $2.4 million toward the cost of a $3-million
steel-and-concrete pedestrian over crossing of the tracks. I'm sure they
would be willing to provide 80 percent of the estimated $3 million for a
PRT crossing at the same location. In fact, since we would be doing some
ground breaking work on PRT, they might be willing to pick up 90 percent
or more of the costs.

I believe that the Milpitas City Council should be rewarded by VTA for
taking the risk of being the first politicians no, elected
representatives to step forward on behalf of an innovative
energy-efficient technology.

And how about some environmental foundation making a contribution to
this endeavor?

Mr. Ruth starts his letter with the same question I want to end with:
"Is this good for Milpitas?"

Although I believe the answer is "yes," a frank and public discussion of
the topic is needed so our representatives know what Milpitans believe
and want. Thank you, Mr. Ruth, for starting that discussion.

-Rob Means, Yellowstone Avenue