Thank you for finally explaining what "hybrid human-electric transit" is. Like mkultra, I have been wondering about that for a long time.

The idea is attractive to the extent that is doesn't seem like it would use a lot of energy, and would promote health and would discourage sprawl-style development. But its unattractive to me to the extent that it doesn't seem to provide a very social or communal platform for transportation, the way transit does, which Hilary alluded to. Even the dreaded automobile has more room for human interaction ... if there are more occupants than just the driver.

The downzoning frenzy in Brooklyn and Queens is every bit as destructive to mass transit as are the parking lots in the Burbs. ... Brooklyn and Queens anti-development forces have taken very transit centered neighborhoods like Park Slope and neutered their future TOD potential by forcing future development away from existing transit corridors by downzoning.

AMEN! Very well put. The downzoning frenzy led to a disastrous series of decisions that push development out into the sprawl zones and make housing in the city even more unaffordable. I wish livable streets people were more vocal in opposing the downzonings.

Then you have things like Atlantic Yards, which is a transit-oriented development if ever there was one, except for all the parking it creates. Problem is it's also a "cataclysmic development," to use Jane Jacob's phrase, and is being persued poorly.

People naturally fixate on a projected traffic increase in their own neighborhood but ignore the related overall net reduction in traffic.

mkultra, Optibike (Colorado, USA perhaps) is a very commercial hybrid human-electric vehicle among others. Look it up. I have no connection.

It's been reported that in China demand far outstrips supply for these type of vehicles at $5,000 US with about 12 million users; versions come 400, 500, and 600 watts.

The New York Times did an article about someone using an Optibike this year I believe.

Optibike was at a Tour de Sol in Albany (about 2 years ago) where a non-elite athelete did 100 miles in a little more than 3 hours probably at something like 2000 miles per gallon.

This type of vehicle is one part of the solution.

It is elevated and goes over cars and trucks protecting users from them.

It is a small monorail 8-inch beam (to at least keep things simple for now).

In a city it might not be quite as high as a lamp post and the spans between vertical supports might be something like 20 feet or more and small enough not to be any more objectionable than double-decker tour buses and probably a lot less because they will be silent. Christos' "The Gates" Central Park structures start to approximate the idea.

An adapting sleeve rides along the beam much like a sleeve of a shirt rides up a human arm. A slot in the sleeve accommodates the vertical beam supports. The vehicle can be ridden off the rail providing full distributed on-demand functionality same as bikes. On the rail it attaches to the sleeve and can provide hands-free maximum safety at higher-than-normal urban speeds because of lack of conflicts. On the rail there is nothing to run into except the rider ahead . . . .

It can provide considerable advantage in non-urban environments as well.

Recumbent bicycles that ride the beam are preferred (at this time) because they can be very low and a rider is practically sitting directly on top of the beam. They also offer full seats and easily accommodate seat belts, less back strain, lower wind resistance, among other advantages.

The rail system itself should be modular, easy to put up, modify, and take down to facilitate adaptation to change, local conditions; and because of simplicity of design should be accessible to considerable input by local communities rather than depending on "experts" telling communities what they need.

This is a full system so there are a lot of design concerns and detailing way beyond the scope of one voice in the dark, but a large part of the idea stage of development can be accelerated with normal CAD/CAM software design and should not even be close to the difficulty of designing a jet or maybe even a brand new model of automobile.

To get an idea on how much is usually spent on industrial design:

One model of Rollerblades $750,000

Lastest Volkswagen Beetle $400 million

A blue sky estimate for industrial design of a Version I of a hybrid human-electric transit system is a laughable bargain at $500 million; as positive disruptive technology this is quite possible.

Hope this is not too abstract.

A big question is with so many users, why hasn't anyone taken the leap into transit that meets developed world expectations? Part of the answer is simply brute force key species dominance of automobiles.

The underlying technology is very mature and is just simply "human-scale mechanical". It is not nano technology or building bridges and skyscrapers. It is just the art of putting a lot of stuff together that has been around for a long time and maybe some new stuff together into a practical solution.

Because the technology is so well established and straightforward it may be difficult for commercial concerns to justify, say one-half billion dollars because it may be difficult to secure local monopolies, except in terms of pure value-based know-how and some patents of minor stuff like track switching, design of rail, etc. which has to be standardized or become a defacto standard like Microsoft Windows. It may also be viewed as a cannibalization of high-margin business within a company and comes with high risk (like IBM sold its laptops to Lenovo now with exceptionally high growth); but, most likely it's currently below the radar.

Although, one-half billion dollars may be deemed as real cheap considering Microsoft spent well over that for each of the more recent operating systems. Hybrid human-electric transit and transport may be viewed as the operating system for a large portion of global transportation by mid-century able to fit through the bottle necks caused by the climate change crisis for which it is intended.

It is ironic that the Gates Foundation is making major investments in developing medical saving a huge number of lives, many of which will be lost if global warming proceeds unabated.

Forty or fifty percent usage in Europe is great, but a complete solution that integrates well with contempory developed world constraints and needs will go viral and will be compatible with the developing world needs as well.

I think this issue that mkultra is trying to raise is a valid one. Yes human powered transport is a vital component of our transportation future. However, pushing this human hybrid concept, especially when you attack transit, leaves no bridge for many of us to join you. This sort of divisiveness reminds me of what I have learned about the splintering of the new left in their various camps in the late '60s early '70s. They all largely had the same goals but got too wrapped up in the details to provide a united front. Perhaps another good example would be PETA's SUVs and global warming campaign.
Transit and human powered transport have a synergy with each other. At this juncture, there is no reason to try and promote one at the expense of the other.

how about most of the netherlands, germany, denmark, etc.??? people there have been commuting (and vacationing, for that matter) via a combination of bicycles and trains for decades. americans may view this is as some radical vision for granola eaters, but the reality is that it is simply common sense -- whether viewed from an economic, public-health, environmental, or development standpoint.

And as to density, it is not only the suburbs who resist density. The downzoning frenzy in Brooklyn and Queens is every bit as destructive to mass transit as are the parking lots in the Burbs.

I'm glad someone said it. It's disappointing that liveable streets advocates didn't have the time and energy to pay attention to this "downzoning" movement; it's probably set TOD back quite a bit.

But Captain, almost all of the suburban station budgets are funded by the localities, that gives the local political entities enormous clout in determining the parking v. TOD (Transit Oriented Development) equation. There are plenty of such studies as you request. Look at the recent Beacon TOD on Metro North. It has only taken about a decade to get to where they are now. Yeah, there are great possibilities for the next decade but it only happens over a long period of time.

And as to density, it is not only the suburbs who resist density. The downzoning frenzy in Brooklyn and Queens is every bit as destructive to mass transit as are the parking lots in the Burbs. The Burbs have to reverse a century of land use decisions to create more transit capable densities, and they have to do that in a political environment where every household already invests $10,000 in owning two cars. Brooklyn and Queens anti-development forces have taken very transit centered neighborhoods like Park Slope and neutered their future TOD potential by forcing future development away from existing transit corridors by downzoning.

Now the "liberals" who represent the downzoned neighborhoods oppose the fare increase, expect to let the Mortgage Recording Tax gleaned from Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn development pay for the MTA and along the way want increased MTA service.

They want a pony for Christmas too.

I have no problem charging these people $8 a day to drive to their Wall Street jobs. In fact, it's way too little. You want your city job and your country living? Well, pay the city for it.

A town like that can't support a bus every hour. And is it supposed to make house calls?

Before making a decision like that, I'd like to see cost estimates for bus service vs. creating lots of parking lots at Metro-North stations and the human cost of a high number of traffic injuries and deaths. Also, what are the revenue sources for those towns? A lot of the people who live in that area are wealthy, right? So why doesn't the town raise taxes on them?

I don't think there will be one solution, but many. I like your idea of reviving the rail beds for greenways to the stations. My point remains that nothing will happen unless the issue is forced.

I don't dispute your larger point, and that's one of the many reasons I support congestion pricing: it forces the issue.

I want to clarify that I don't think that a greenway on the old Housatonic right-of-way is an adequate solution given current levels of bicycle usage. I was suggesting replacing the rails and reviving passenger train service on the line.

When times get tough naturally adapting animals get smaller.

Moving a ton of steel and glass and very often much more for each person moved is a dumb process difficult to understand in a supposedly advanced civilization running out of resources and environment.

I don't think there will be one solution, but many. I like your idea of reviving the rail beds for greenways to the stations. My point remains that nothing will happen unless the issue is forced.

That might include making any future developments have a robust plan for connecting residents to transit.