Running header: SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA

Green Alternatives: Same Transport, Different Era

Tai Lohrer

University of California, Berkeley

College Writing R1A

SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 2

Preface

Transportation accounts for 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US (Ribeiro et

al., 2007), and the resultant climate change is projected to have an economic cost of half a

trillion dollars by 2050 (Ackerman et al., 2008). An obvious solution to combat this is to

transition from fossil fuel utilizing internal combustion engines to alternative clean energy

transport. However, the reality is that these alternatives need to not only be environmentally

friendly, but technologically and economically viable. In the face of the growing issue of

climate change, governments worldwide look for solutions, but instead of looking to the

future, they are searching through the past.

The Airship

Airships, known as yachts of the sky were once a commonplace, thought to be the

future of long distance transport, and due to challenges brought on by anthropogenic climate

change, they may well be.

The transport industry was revolutionized by Count Zeppelin, known as the father of

the modern airship, due to the introduction of the first commercial aerial transport company

in 1909 (Laniado, 2000). By introducing commercial airship flight, travel times across the

Atlantic Ocean were halved from four to two days in comparison to the common mode of

long distance transport at the time, the ship (Laniado, 2000). In addition to being faster than

their surface-bound competitors, airships were more luxurious, sophisticated, and provided

the best views. At their peak of their popularity in the 1930s, airships transported around

405,000 passengers across the Atlantic Ocean (Tagliabue, 2008).

Yet, the golden era of airship travel came to an abrupt end following the Hindenburg

disaster in 1937 (Tagliabue, 2008). The Hindenburg, the worlds largest airship, combusted

in spectacular fashion during a docking attempt due to the explosive nature of the hydrogen

gas used in Zeppelins at the time and its balsawood frame (Tanrantola, 2013), resulting in the
SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 3

death of 35 passengers and crew on board. This disaster highlighted the dangers of airship

travel and resulted in a sharp decrease in consumer confidence in the industry. Due to an

American monopoly on helium deposits, it was more than 1000 times more expensive than its

abundant counterpart, hydrogen (The Great Airships, n.d). As a result, helium was rarely

used in airships in the 1930s despite being an inert and therefore safer alternative to

hydrogen gas. In addition to the economic challenges and reputation damage that began to

plague airships, they began to face increased competition from another form of air travel: the

plane. During the 1930s, technological advancements in plane technology resulted in more

reliable models with increased ranges and speed, while also providing a quieter and less

turbulent ride (Laniado, 2000). As a result, planes significantly outcompeted airships and

monopolized long-distance air travel, as they were a more economically viable option for

both consumers and companies.

However, due to rising fuel costs and an awareness of the significant impact our

carbon footprint has on the environment, there has been renewed interest and investigation

into airships for cargo transport. The aviation industry continues to grow, and as a result

greenhouse gas emissions from the industry do also. In less than two decades, the European

Unions aviation emissions have risen by 87% (Climate change, 2006). The resulting

government-funded research and development has led to significant advancements in airship

technology. Modern airships and airship hybrids such as the HAV304 are up to 70% more

environmentally friendly than comparable cargo planes (Carter, 2014), meaning fuel costs

can be cut significantly. These airships are also able to carry hundreds of tons of cargo, while

being airborne for up to three weeks at a time (Carter, 2014). For these reasons, airships are

being re-explored for their potential as an alternative for freight transport. While it is unlikely

that airships will replace jets in the travel industry, the unique ability of the airship to

vertically take off and stay airborne for significant lengths of time means it has uses for
SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 4

humanitarian aid in disaster zones and freight to areas without landing strips (Tarantola,

2013), places planes cannot reach.

The environmental impacts of the transport industry are becoming increasingly

relevant to making economic decisions in the business world, and therefore clean transport

alternatives such as the airship are being reinvestigated.

The Electric Car

Despite currently consisting of only three percent of new car sales (Matulka, 2014),

the electric car was once the most popular form of ground transport at the turn of the 20th

century (Romero, 2009). And due to growing environmental concerns and recent

developments in technology, it is poised to make a comeback.

At the turn of the century, the electric vehicle, steam engine, and internal combustion

engine competed to become the mainstream form of land transport. The early internal

combustion engine, electrics biggest competitor, was plagued by many issues; it was loud,

dirty, and difficult to drive, while also requiring constant maintenance (Romero, 2009). As a

result, the quiet, reliable electric vehicle quickly gained popularity, and by the 1900s, one in

three cars on the road was electric (Matulka, 2014).

However, the introduction of Henry Fords Model T in the late 1900s marked the

beginning of the end for the electric car. The mass production of the gasoline-fueled internal

combustion engine increased accessibility of cars to the general public. No longer considered

a luxury, the Model T cost $650 compared to $1750 for an average electric vehicle (Matulka,

2014). This price disparity resulted in a significant drop in demand for electric cars (Romero,

2009). Not only were electric vehicles outcompeted in terms of price, there was also a

paradigm shift in terms of the use of cars. Due to a lack of adequate infrastructure, early cars

did not require long ranges as they were confined to large urban centers. With the nationwide

development of better road infrastructure and more gasoline stations, there was increased
SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 5

ability and subsequently, increased demand for vehicles to travel long distances (Matulka,

2014). The electric car was now unable to compete with the gasoline cars due to its limited

range, and coupled with low fuel prices due to the discovery of oil in Texas, electric cars

vanished from the roads.

There were periods of renewed interest in electric vehicles due to high oil costs,

shortages and an awareness of the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels, yet electric

car use never grew significantly in these eras. The 1960-1970 fuel shortages and high cost of

oil led to an investigation into alternative forms of energy (Romero, 2009). The next period

of growth in the electric vehicle industry was during the 1990s, where legislation was passed

to investigate fossil fuel alternatives for transport due to increasing concerns with air

pollution and the greenhouse effect of carbon emissions (Maltuka, 2014). However, electric

car sales such as the government mandated GMs EV1 never took off due to their high cost

and limited range (Romero, 2009) despite government funded research and subsidies.

However, today, electric vehicles are making a resurgence. Increased awareness of

the impact of our carbon footprint, along with rising fuel costs have led to significant

development in electric vehicle technology. One of the main concerns with electric vehicles

in the past has been their limited range, which has resulted in floundering sales of fully-

electric models such as the Nissan Leaf (Tuttle, 2012). However, due to rapid technological

advances, companies such as Tesla have now developed luxury electric cars with ranges of

up to 200 miles (Matulka, 2014). Drivers of this model would be able to make the five-hour

return trip from San Francisco to Sacramento on a single charge. These electric vehicles are

still not accessible to the general public however, with Tesla models costing upwards of

$90,000 (Romero, 2009). Albeit a niche market due to this inaccessibility of electric vehicles

(Tuttle, 2012), it is an emerging one.

SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 6

The future of electric vehicles looks promising, with advances in technology resulting

in increased performance and decreased costs (Romero, 2009). Government-led research and

development has led to battery costs being halved in the last four years (Matulka, 2014). As a

result, the price of electric cars such as the Tesla models continue to fall, with the soon to be

released Tesla Model 3 expected to cost $35,000 (Tesla Model 3, 2017). These falling costs

along with increased charging infrastructure across the country mean that widespread electric

car use is becoming a reality.

Despite the current knowledge of the impact of combusting fossil fuels, consumers

continue to purchase gasoline fueled cars due to the lack of an alternative at a price range

they can afford. Once a Model T of the electric car is introduced to the market, gasoline

fueled cars will meet a similar fate to the original electric vehicles.

Personal Rapid Transport

Since the conceptualization of the Personal Rapid Transport (PRT) system by Don

Fichter in 1953 (Dodson, 2007), governments worldwide have invested millions into making

them a reality, to no avail. However, with modern advancements in technology and urgent

demand for alternatives to the internal combustion engine (Roberts, 2015), PRT could soon

indeed be at our doorsteps.

PRT involves networks of small automated pods controlled by a central computer.

At the push of a button, a pod arrives and transports passengers with the comfort and luxury

of a private vehicle, directly to their intended destination, without wait times and timetables.

In theory, PRT was the perfect system; it brought together the best aspects of private

vehicles and public transport; it was expected to reduce congestion in large cities, having

15mph faster rush hour traffic speeds (Wahl, 1971), while using 75% less energy per mile

than cars (Dodson, 2007). In addition, PRT was touted by its advocates to be significantly

cheaper than other comparable forms of mass transport, such as light and heavy rail. As a
SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 7

result, there were growing hopes and expectations for implementation of PRT worldwide.

This led to the government bodies such as the US Department of Transport injecting millions

of dollars in the 1960s and 1970s to fund PRT projects such as the West Virginia University

(WVU) PRT in Morgantown in an effort to combat growing congestion and pollution in large

urban centers (Wahl, 1971).

Despite the high expectations, the implementation of a feasible model proved to be a

logistical nightmare, and concept of PRT was largely abandoned. One of the troubles PRT

faced was that cities are designed to accommodate cars (Robertson, n.d), making it extremely

expensive and difficult to establish the infrastructure needed for a PRT system to operate

successfully. The only system still operational from the 1970s is the West Virginia

University PRT mentioned previously. The WVU PRT went $112 million dollars over the

original $14 million-dollar budget, and was delayed by several years (Light Rail Now!,

2004). Moreover, the logistics of the extensive station system and the organization of

individual pods proved to be a major obstacle, preventing many projects such as the 1994

Illinois PRT system from coming to fruition altogether (Light Rail Now!, 2004).

Arguments have also been raised that PRT is no more efficient than cars on a motorway, and

significantly less efficient than light or heavy rail (Dodson, 2007), which makes the high

initial investments and maintenance difficult to justify.

Despite these hurdles, the drawbacks of the internal combustion engine today

outweigh the positives of them more than ever, and consequently, there is renewed interest in

PRT. Modern technological advancements are able to overcome many of the original issues

with the PRT system (Dodson, 2007). One example is the NASA subsidiary that has recently

developed a PRT system coined skyTran. SkyTran utilizes low maintenance mag-lev

technology on an elevated monorail track, lowering costs, while saving energy and valuable

space within urban areas (Roberts, 2015). Although skyTran has not yet been practically
SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 8

applied, there are development projects underway. However, much like the electric car, costs

are still too high for them to become a commonplace today.

Perhaps a more viable realization of PRT in the near future is already on the roads;

the driverless car. A fleet of driverless cars could perform the same function as pods would in

a conventional PRT system, however would not require dramatic changes to current

infrastructure as the original attempts in the 1970s did (Robertson, 2015). As a consequence,

PRT could be realized with substantially lower costs. One such driverless car concept is

already being developed in Masdar city in the United Arab Emirates (Bullis, 2009), albeit on

a very small scale, with the advantage of a city actively being designed around a PRT system.

Moreover, Google subsidiary Sidewalk Labs is preparing to implement mass fleets of

driverless cars in the near future. This could mark the end of privately owned vehicles in

large cities, and dramatically reduce urban traffic and pollution (Walker, 2016).

PRT, once thought of only as an unattainable dream, may soon be realized in these

alternative forms such as skyTran and fleets of driverless cars.

Postface

As we move towards sustainable and clean sources of energy, there has been a

resurgence of interest into previously obsolete forms of transport, due to modern

environmentalism and technological advancements. These advancements are quickly

bridging the gap between these theoretical systems and reality, meaning that these forms of

transport could soon be a commonplace. Perhaps we may soon see airships gliding silently

through the skies instead of contrails, electric vehicle charging ports instead of gas stations,

and fleets of driverless vehicles instead of privately owned cars wasting away in garages. The

technology right around the corner.

SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 9

References

Ackerman et al. (2008). The cost of climate change. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/cost.pdf

Bullis, K. (2016). PRT startup. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/411949/personal-rapid-transit-startup/

Carter, C. (2014). Worlds largest aircraft unveiled and hailed game changer. The

Telegraph. Retrieved from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/greenertransport/10667081/Worlds-largest-

aircraft-unveiled-and-hailed-game-changer.html

Climate Change. (2006). Climate change: commission proposes bringing air transport into

EU Emissions Trading Scheme. European Commission. Retrieved from

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-06-1862_en.htm

Dodson, S. (2007). Welcome to the transport of tomorrow. The Guardian. Retrieved from

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/oct/11/guardianweeklytechnologysect

ion.news1

Laniado, J. (2000). Slow motion. Frieze Magazine. Retrieved from

https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1465513/files/folder/Readings/U2%20Readings

?preview=71516713

Light Rail Now!. (2004). Personal rapid transit: cyberspace dream keeps colliding with

reality. Light Rail Now. Retrieved from

https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1465513/files/folder/Readings/U2%20Readings

?preview=71516719

Matulka, R. (2014). The history of the electric car. Department of Energy. Retrieved from

https://energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car
SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 10

Ribeiro et al. (2007). Transport and its infrastructure. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Retrieved from

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5.html

Roberts, D. (2015). PRT: the future of public transport, maybe. Grist. Retrieved from

http://grist.org/business-technology/personal-rapid-transit-the-future-of-public-

transportation-maybe/

Robertson, A. (n.d.). The road not taken. The Verge. Retrieved from

https://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11094524/prt-transit-history-self-driving-cars-

alden-starrcar-tomorrowland-1960s

Romero, F. (2009). A brief history of the electric car. Time Magazine. Retrieved from

https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1465513/files/folder/Readings/U2%20Readings

?preview=71530314

Tagliabue, J. (2008). Why fly when you can float? New York Times. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/business/worldbusiness/05dirigible.html?_r=1

Tarantola, A. (2013). The aluminum airship of the future has finally flown. Gizmodo.

Retrieved from https://gizmodo.com/the-aluminum-airship-of-the-future-has-finally-

flown-1301320903

Tesla Model 3. (2017). Model 3 Specs. Tesla. Retrieved from

https://www.tesla.com/model3

The Great Airships. (n.d). Excerpt from Century of flight. Retrieved from

https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1465513/files/folder/Readings/U2%20Readings

?preview=71516714

Tuttle, B. (2012). Is it time to declare the Nissan Leaf a flop? Time Magazine. Retrieved from

http://business.time.com/2012/09/07/is-it-time-to-declare-the-nissan-leaf-a-flop/
SAME TRANSPORT, DIFFERENT ERA 11

Wahl, P. (1971). Personal rapid transport. Popular Science. Retrieved from

https://books.google.com/books?id=PQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA74#v=onepage&q&

f=false

Walker, P. (2016). Is the mass sharing of driverless cars about to reshape our suburbs? The

Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/sep/26/sidewalk-

labs-google-mass-sharing-driverless-cars-reshape-suburbs