'Highway in the sky' monorail not necessarily a big reach
That's the idea behind Mass Tram America Inc.'s "Highway in the Sky." Headed by former Boeing engineer Ben Missler, the company plans to convert decommissioned Boeing 727, 737, and 757 planes into monorail cars, and create a national elevated transit system designed to operate at speeds up to 150 mph.
Currently in the concept stage, the monorail system would transport people and freight, and be integrated with existing bridges and freeways. Mass Tram America hopes to launch a pilot project by 2011. The company is developing a prototype train that could travel from Eugene, Ore., to Vancouver, British Columbia, on a monorail built above Interstate 5.
The Highway in the Sky would cost an estimated $8 million to $12 million per mile — less than some urban commuter- and light-rail lines' construction cost and far below the Las Vegas Monorail's $162 million-per-mile price tag.
Cost notwithstanding, the proposal begs the question: Who'll pay for it? Mass Tram America is exploring the availability of government funds and grants, and approaching venture capitalists. However, it'll be difficult to convince politicians and private investors — who aren't exactly lining up to back traditional commuter- and light-rail projects — to support what some opponents are calling a "pie" rather than "highway" in the sky proposal.
A tough sell? Yes. A totally far-fetched concept? No. Outside of reducing highway congestion, the monorail's biggest asset might be its "green" appeal.
Mass Tram America would strip off a plane's wings, engine and tail to create a passenger car with compartments for solar cells and batteries, and build a monorail system supported by towers fitted with solar panels, wind turbines or a combination of both. The monorail would be powered by environmentally friendly solar- and wind-generated electricity, as well as fuel cells and a regenerative braking system.
The rail industry could stand a little more pie-in-the-sky thinking and a lot less reliance on environmentally unfriendly fossil fuels.
For more on Mass Tram America and the Highway in the Sky, click here.
Posted by: 
Jeff Stagl | Date posted: 10/15/2007
Comments
Posted by Jack Fuller on 10/19/2007 12:34:08 PM
How is it that H.i.t.S. costs so much less than other modes? I would guess that it's because right-of-way acqusition is not included, based on the assumption that the lines would be built in existing freeway medians. But there is nothing inherent in other modes that would preclude similar construction, or similar use of green sources of energy, as all would be electrically powered. And the other modes are proven technology, not just artist's conceptions. Comparing an intercity line's cost per mile with major urban subways where tunneling is required is disingenuous.
Posted by William Moorhead on 10/19/2007 8:38:02 PM
The re-use of airframes and other green concepts are laudable, but is this to be rubber-tired? If so, the 150 mph may be tough and rough: example — the Las Vegas monorail, rough as a cob at low speeds. Would this same idea work if there were two steel rails to support these sizable vehicles? The TGV proves the 150-mph is no problem, and the rolling resistance is much less than rubber tires.
Posted by Ken M. on 10/22/2007 10:50:25 AM
Why are we only talking a measly 150 mph? Only faster speeds and shorter travel times will help drivers leave their cars (me included!). For what it's worth, I think they should aim for higher speeds and drop the thought of moving freight, just passengers.
Posted by HIGHPSEED-IL on 10/22/2007 11:42:09 AM
With respect to Ken M.: All else being equal, it is sensitivity to overall travel time and not top speed that makes people shift modes! TOP SPEEDS are just a selling point. Most highway rights-of-way were never designed to accommodate rail passenger systems, so you have many reverse engineering issues to consider.
Posted by Roderick Llewellyn on 10/23/2007 4:18:54 PM
The problem with any scheme which puts a rail system integrated with highways is that highways are (usually, thankfully) designed to avoid major activity sites, because they are so disruptive to such sites. There are some existing systems using this method, for example, buses on LA freeways, and BART in San Francisco Bay Area freeway medians. These systems either force people to walk a long distance from the freeway to the activity center (as in LA), thus limiting their appeal; or as in the BART case, attract mainly people who drive cars to the station and thus don't really provide a transit alternative to people without cars. Contrast this to traditional urban rail and subway systems which take riders directly to activity centers. Adding such a capability to the monorail concept would cause its cost to soar. People also don't like elevated railways and that's why most were torn down and replaced by subways early in the century. Beware of cost estimates given by engineers and companies with vested interests in the infrastructure being built! These estimates are always outrageously too low. The signaling systems alone would probably cost as much as the estimated total per mile cost. Probably the least efficient transportation mode of all is airplanes at ground level, and all that's being reused here is a body which is totally unsuited to ground transportation. Airplane bodies are made as light as possible, so won't even come close to meeting FRA buffing strength requirements, necessitating all kinds of complex "train" separation methods and prevent any interoperability with existing rail networks. Sorry, it's a silly idea, but one of those ideas which tends to get traction in rail-ignorant America because it has the potential to enrich some folks.
Posted by Dan Lauzon on 10/23/2007 8:18:54 PM
Roderick is right on the mark with his comments regarding highway rights of way. Here in New England abandoned rail ROWs are being gobbled up by bike path advocates. The problem is the passion by which "rails to trails" lobbyist actually secure exclusive use. I doubt once a ROW goes "trails" we would ever get it back for rail use. One way I have have stopped these proposals is by pointing out that in the case of a breakdown the local fire department would be engaged to "ladder down" the passengers. As a follow up on the political will of the Rails to Trails. Dr. Howard Dean of VT began his political career with Rails to Trails!
Posted by Tom Denney on 10/26/2007 12:16:28 AM
Old airliners for freight — ok. But not for passengers. I assume he is talking about intercity transit. For that elevated automated monorail is perfect. Small consists can arrive at at station with 2 minute headways, or even less (Las Vegas was designed for 90 seconds). If he is talking about intercity transit, I think he'd have a hard time competing with maglev's 300 mph easily-achieveable speed. There is much to this issue beyond recycling airplane bodies! Check out www.monorails.org to see what I mean. Best wishes.
Posted by Roderick Llewellyn on 10/29/2007 11:01:34 AM
Here is yet another major problem with this scheme. While many have pointed out that a 150 mph passenger railroad is slow by world standards (though still fast by primitive American standards), it is still way above highway operating speeds. What this means is that highways are not designed with the kind of curvature radii to support those speeds. You are not intended to drive at 150 mph! Therefore to maintain 150 mph velocities, the monorail would almost certainly have to leave the highway right-of-way (ROW) frequently in order to reduce curvature (i.e., be straighter). While it is possible that a rail system could be designed that would "corner" at much higher speeds than the right-of-way was designed for, this would require substantial side forces which would both reduce efficiency and subject passengers to signficant discomfort. Tilting trains do some of this for the same purpose, but they can't turn 60 mph ROWs into 150 mph ones and thus neither can this system. Naturally, if the monorail has to often depart from the highway ROW because of this problem, the major advantage of it (taking little land) would be lost, costs would explode and neighborhood opposition would mount. The way that European and Asian advanced systems deal with these problems is that intercity high-speed lines are brand new and follow generally tangent (straight) courses with tunnels and viaducts. But when they enter cities, they run on older existing track at reduced speed. This avoids the need to take land and reduces neighborhood opposition. This is especially critical because the noise produced by any vehicle rises rapidly with speed. High-speed bypass tracks allow express services to skip towns, while still permitting service to those towns at somewhat slower speed (often still faster than most American services). These considerations to my mind constitute a show-stopper for this idea.
Posted by Alan Bosch on 11/14/2007 10:04:07 AM
The United States has always prided itself as being an innovator in technology; however, we Americans must face the facts that when it comes to high-speed rail, we are the followers and not the leaders. The Japanese, French and Germans have been building and operating high speed trains for well over 30 years successfully. They’re experience has shown that to achieve high speeds, you need to build dedicated rail lines, generally within dedicated ROW with geometrics far exceeding those of freeways in urban/suburban areas…period! They have also developed the rail cars to achieve these high speeds. We need to quit stop trying to reinvent the wheel and use the technology that’s out there.
Posted by Peter H. on 12/14/2007 7:32:35 AM
Yes! And get Homer Simpson to to be the first Monorail Driver (Don't forget the donuts!).
Posted by Penny Dixon on 1/8/2009 4:36:19 PM
Wow, let's get on board with Mass Tram America and avoid another interstate complete closure like Chehalis, Washington is incountering once again from flooding over the I-5 highway. With the Tram you could just fly over those floods waters!
