PRTs The Future Of Transit?
Personal rapid transit systems (PRTs) are the new style of transit that seem to be gaining some traction:
The thought of a driverless, computer-guided car transporting people where they want to go on demand is a futuristic notion to some.
To Jacob Roberts, podcars - or PRTs, for personal rapid transit - represent an important component in the here-and-now of transportation.
“It’s time we design cities for the human, not for the automobile,” said Roberts, president of Connect Ithaca, a group of planning and building professionals, activists and students committed to making this upstate New York college town the first podcar community in the United States.
I’m not sure what I dislike so much about PRTs - they remind me of a world like the Jetson’s, where nobody actually has to lift a finger to do anything - and magically, nobody gets fat:
Instead of offering concrete suggestions of why I think PRTs are a disaster of backwards thinking, I’d like to say, for now, that everything that is right about the bicycle is wrong about PRT.
OK - how about a simple criticism? We should not spend tens of millions of dollars on unproven, highly-risky technologies instead of putting that money into proven, low-risk technologies. What’s wrong with traditional rail? What’s wrong with light rail? The subway? Buses?
And what about replacing some dependence on transit with dependence on walking and biking? We could do it for a fraction of the cost.
That there is so much criticism of PRTs already is a bit worrisome because that means that someone, somewhere is taking the concept seriously.
The New Urbanists weigh in with mixed opinions, but I’ll roll with James Howard Kunstler on this one:
“If we’re going to replace the car why do it with something that’s not only like the car, but not really as good as the car? It just seems crazy.”
What’s your take?
…OK - I have to add one last bit - the name ‘PRT’ makes no sense for this technology. These ‘pod cars’ are not personal in any sense that I can imagine. There is, however, one form of transit that does fit the PRT description - it is personal and rapid — here’s a picture of what this proven and inexpensive piece of technology looks like:
[Image created by / Grafikę stworzył Brosen]
Leave comment (33)[p.s. The Forums are open for participation.]
October 19th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Senator Michele Bachmann (Google her if you don’t know of her) promoted PRT when she was in the MInnesota Senate in 2004:
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/04/26_mccalluml_prt/
..’nuff said about the PRT boondoggle.
October 19th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I’m disabled. I can’t drive a car or ride a bike. I first became aware of PRT a few months ago, thanks to running across one of Ken Avidor’s screeds against it. As far as I can tell, PRT would be an absolute godsend for me. currently I rely on friends with cars, buses, or dial-a-ride services to get around. The first is humiliatingly dependant, while the latter two are both humiliatingly dependent, excruciatingly slow, and not available at all hours. The train is better, but it takes me an hour and a half (including waiting times) to even get to the train. A PRT system would give me on-demand, independent, 24-hour-a-day service in my local neighborhood, while getting me to the train much more quickly, when I needed to travel longer distances.
When you write that “These ‘pod cars’ are not personal in any sense that I can imagine,” it’s a clear give-away that you simply haven’t understood how the technology works. Likely you’ve only read the literature on one side of the issue, and frankly, a lot of the anti-PRT literature is — there’s no nice way to say this — full of blatant, bald-faced lies, once you dig a bit beneath the surface. I would encourage you to take the time to read literature on the other side of the issue:
http://www.acprt.org/PRTSkeptics.cfm
http://www.gettherefast.org/lightrailnow.html
http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/~prt-q.html
http://www.acprt.org/PRTFaqs.cfm
And then there’s our friend Ken Avidor, above. I must thank him for first making me aware of PRT, but aside from that, I think he’s a psychopath and a jerk. Every single one of his arguments against PRT has been exposed as a lie, so all he can do now is the old “guilt-by-association” routine. You know: PRTs are bad because Michelle Bachmann supports them; vegetarianism is bad because Hitler was a vegetarian; The Beatles are bad because Charles Manson listened to them, et cetera. I honestly think he has some sort of mental problem. He’s like a single-issue Karl Rove.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:26 am
The “personal” in PRT refers to the size of the traveling group it caters to — flexibly routing a person or small group of persons from any station in the network, to any other station in the network, on-demand and nonstop, like an express elevator.
PRT is just like a train, except imagine only having to move the occupied parts of the train. It is much like skyscrapers using a lot of small elevators, instead of one big one.
Less vehicle weight per seat also helps achieve certain efficiencies.
That’s all PRT is. The only reason Avidor mentions Michele Bachmann is for guilt-by-association purposes. She didn’t invent PRT, and hasn’t promoted it in Congress. In contrast, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) has signaled he wants PRT included in a federal transportation bill next session. Meanwhile, two PRT systems have won safety approval from Europe, and the Masdar zero-waste city now under construction is going to have a PRT ’subway.’
October 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
@Karen — I have a few thoughts:
The first is humiliatingly dependent
i hate that aspect of transit - and i’m not even disabled. it’s one of the main reasons I support beefing up all transit before we even think about spending another nickel on car infrastructure.
i’m hoping that ‘adaptive cycling’ technology continues to advance along with the livable streets movement, so that those most dependent on our typically-terrible transit systems have a bit more freedom and independence and get get around a bit easier with more of their dignity intact. there’s a program in Berkeley called BORP that does some cool things in this area.
A PRT system would give me on-demand, independent, 24-hour-a-day service in my local neighborhood, while getting me to the train much more quickly, when I needed to travel longer distances.
i don’t believe that it would, or even could provide any or all of these things. this vision, to me, sounds like an impossibility that, if somehow implemented, would destroy much of the fabric of any and every neighborhood where the PRT ran. all of these things - ‘on-demand’, ‘independent’, ‘24-hours-a-day’ - they’re not easy, especially in suburban settings. reading that stuff, i feel like a townie in an old western movie where some city-slicker comes to town selling snake oil and he thinks i don’t have a brain, so he promises the world and all i can think is, “Where’s the money?”
That is, who is getting paid? Who stands to benefit? It all feels very shady.
Would these PRTs replace traditional transit, or just complement them?
If folks wanted to talk about automating transit to a certain extent - making it run safer, more on-time, more efficiently, etc. - i’m all ears, but this wholesale salesmanship - it bugs me. even the SUPERTRAIN that we’re probably going to build here in California - what’s it supposed to cost - $45 Billion or something? it’ll be twice that. But I’m supporting it anyway. at least it’s an attempt at catching up to proven, 30-year old technologies that are in operation around the world.
you simply haven’t understood how the technology works
possible. my degree in computer engineering and 10 years of experience in the technology industry only goes so far.
Likely you’ve only read the literature on one side of the issue
that’s not true. most of my knowledge came from PRT propaganda of one sort or another. then this article in the Chronicle, which is largely favorable to PRTs, I think, and then the wiki page.
I first looked into PRT stuff when i rode my bike by a PRT outfit in Oakland down at Jack London Square. the place had an office storefront so i went in and asked about it. they guy there directed me to a brochure near the door.
i read the brochure, which struck me as pure fluff - it seemed like it was a plan for a bunch of rich, white folks to force some utopian ‘transit’ system on poor folks (I knew politically-organized folks would never allow such a monstrosity into their neighborhoods).
I immediately thought of the Detroit People Mover - which I’d ridden once or twice. It basically sucked, but you could see how it could have some potential if it wasn’t designed to fail. And the People Mover is really nothing like the PRT systems being described in the brochures. The brochures tell us that these pod cars will show up at our residence and whisk us away to our destinations in just a few minutes flat. It’s absurd.
One of the DC bloggers (Richard Layman, maybe?) suggested using a private taxi service to help disabled folks move around, instead of running those dial-a-ride services you mention. I really don’t know the details on that stuff, though.
I do have a bias though - I generally dislike all things motorized. I love active transport - walking, biking, etc. I’ll grudgingly try to advocate for transit systems that make sense, but i’ll try to do it at the expense of private cars - the ultimate DPRT (Destructive PRT).
I’m actually very surprised that Ithaca is wanting to be first. There’s some smart people up there. Well, it seems the PRT will be interesting, that’s for sure. I can only think that some heavy investors in PRT got to a few key policymakers in what is still a pretty small town and convinced them that a lot of money could be made by pushing a ‘harmless little transit system’. How often do we hear about the Detroit People Mover, after all? No harm, no foul. At least for the people who don’t have to ride it.
and finally, we need more and bigger and better organizations to cover the transit disaster. not just in SF, but in every town. i’m amazed by all the people who ride transit every day all across america and keep their mouths shut about the experience. i realize that a lot of our most vulnerable people ride transit, so they don’t want to rock the boat, but what about everyone else? bus is late so you just take it? train is late so you grin and bear it? where is the organization to look out for riders’ interests?
October 20th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
the Connect Ithaca website is down or disappeared or something. sucks.
October 20th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
it seems like the Detroit People Mover is actually GRT - Group Rapid Transit, not personal rapid transit. And the PRT installed at West Virginia University in Morgantown is also not PRT, but GRT. great. so, we have exactly zero working installations of PRT in the world today.
heathrow airport has something that will work for one or two destinations, it seems, when it is completed. And the new city in abu dhabi will have one that runs underground.
brilliant. sign me up. can you throw in a unicorn with that?
October 20th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Peter, you clearly don’t understand the concept. Do some research before bashing it. Start with Karen’s links.
October 20th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Thanks ATES - i did read a bunch of stuff on all the links that folks posted above, including Karen’s links. As you might have suspected from my ‘unicorn’ comment, I’m more convinced now that PRT is probably the worst idea since the automobile.
I’d go further now and suggest that the only possible explanation for its near-existence is that someone stands to make a buck from it - directly and/or indirectly - because the idea is clearly lacking any grounding in reality.
October 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Peter, please do elaborate. What do you feel is lacking in reality? I’ve studied all the literature for 4 years now, and I went from skeptic to supporter, so perhaps I can correct your misconceptions.
And, to be clear: if you think PRT is unrealistic, you are wrong, period. There have been at least half a dozen prototypes built, most of which have carried passengers. The German Cabintaxi prototype carried thousands of passengers in the 1970s; other full or partial prototypes include CVS (Japan, 1970s), PRT2000 (US, 1990s), Taxi2000 (US, current), Vectus (Korea and Sweden, current), ULTra (UK, current). That’s just off the top of my head.
ULTra is now being built for a pilot at Heathrow. Despite significant one-time costs associated with being a pilot, the system is being built for about $20-30M per mile per direction. Larger implementations amortize those startup costs and are projected at $15M per mile per direction, or $30M/mi bidirectional. Now consider rail, which you promote: most systems are at least $30-60M/mile for a street-based system (which has capacity on par with PRT); grade separated systems offer more capacity but cost $100M-$200M per mile or more. These systems feature single-dimensional travel, few stations, frequent stops, and transfers.
For similar (or even less) startup cost, PRT gives you more station density, point-to-point travel in 2 dimensions, 24 hour service, lower power consumption per passenger, and lower operating costs. I can back up all of these statements if you like; just ask and I’ll explain (in as much detail as you like) the justification for all these claims.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
@ATES I’d be happy if I knew there was one working PRT system anywhere in the world - a real, live, operational PRT. But since there is not, all we’re left with is hypotheticals.
But, in fairness, how will PRT invade the suburbs? How will these magical vehicles automatically show up at someone’s door - possibly the door of a disabled person? Exactly how will that work?
And after addressing that one of myriad problems with PRT, I suggest we do this - when Heathrow Terminal 5 is live (if it ever goes live), we’ll look at the results. If it shows benefits in any of the promised areas, and on the whole, the enterprise actually seems to work, more or less, then people like me will try to take it seriously.
If PRT can prove itself in the simplistic airport setting, then maybe we can talk about a slightly more ambitious application in some city or suburb that is very far from me (I don’t think I could ever support PRT for myriad reasons, many of which are very similar to the problems created by the automobile.). It looks like the good people of Ithaca want to be Jetson’s location number 1 - more power to them - local control, that’s what I say.
October 20th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I think your question about Who Benefits is properly asked of anything that could affect the public pocketbook or the livability of cities. The answer in this case is pretty standard — those benefiting are the same as with any transit project: the system buyer, maker, those who would pay for it, and those who would ride. Except in PRT, ideally there is less distance between stations, so there could be less problems with underserving some segments of the public.
Demand at each station would determine the levels of service, leading to another of your concerns: PRT travelers overwhelming some neighborhoods. Demand would be based on zoning and land uses in the area of each station.
Now to the big question — does PRT replace rail, or complement it? Obviously the answers are respectively No and Yes. It would be politically impossible to replace perfectly good light or heavy rail transit systems that already exist, as well as financially foolish if the systems are new and their bonds haven’t yet been paid off.
PRT could be used as a circulator, a rail feeder, and a comprehensive city or district-wide network. We are seeing these roles in the current PRT planning on the other side of the Atlantic: the Heathrow shuttle would expand to circulate around the whole airport; Sweden wants PRT as a non-automotive way to access their national rail system; Masdar and Daventry are planning town-wide networks that also link to intercity rail.
Which configuration is right for other cities is a complex public policy question, with different results according to the unique situations of each jurisdiction. Again, like any proposed capital project. In other words, PRT could be one of many tools to choose from, the best choice sometimes, maybe not the best at other times. As systems prove themselves through operational experience, the question of how well they will serve the public becomes a matter of how our planners propose to use them, and whether we give our decisionmakers the permission to adopt them. Or not — No Action is a perfectly acceptable policy option.
October 20th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Peter, who exactly sold this as a suburban door-to-door system? The initial implementations would do what your preferred trains do now, only better, faster, and cheaper. Do you ask why the train doesn’t come to your suburban doorway?
PRT would have stations where people would walk (or ride) to and board, just like all existing transit, except stations would generally be located closer together than other forms of transit, and when you boarded a station anywhere, you could go to any other station on the entire network - no wait and no transfer. And you could do this at 4am on Christmas eve without any concernes about reduced schedules.
As for lack of a real system, you’d better not get too attached to that particular talking point, because it expires next year. In addition to Heathrow, there is Masdar in the middle east and about half a dozen other efforts that may go live in the next 5 years. You want proof that it will work, you’ll get it soon - will you retract your criticisms when those systems come online?
Notice above that I said “ride” to stations - I’m referring to your own form of “personal transit”, the bicycle. PRT vehicles are all bicycle friendly, just roll your bike in and sit down. How can that not be attractive to bicyclists? Not to mention, roads with reduced auto traffic would be more accessible for bicycle traffic. Why is this such a bad thing?
So tell me, Peter, why would you support a train that is more expensive, slower, less convenient and less efficient, over PRT? What does a train have that PRT lacks? Why would you pay more for less? I can understand criticism from people who oppose all forms of infrastructure, but to oppose PRT on the grounds that it doesn’t come to your door while supporting other forms of transit that are actually further away from most people - well that just leads me to believe you really haven’t thought this through.
October 20th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Peter, who exactly sold this as a suburban door-to-door system?
Karen suggested neighborhood-level access, at least.
What does a train have that PRT lacks?
It works?
October 20th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Nope, that argument doesn’t fly. PRT works just fine. As I mentioned earlier, Cabintaxi had a full scale prototype in the 1970s which carried passengers. They built a large scale certification and testing facility in Hagen, Germany, which logged 400,000 miles of vehicle testing over 6 years using 24 vehicles running at 3 second separation.
Included in this testing were separate full-fleet endurance tests of 7500 and 10000 hours of continuous operation. That’s over TWO years of continuous endurance testing without any issues. At the conclusion of these tests, German regulators certified it safe for public use.
That was 30 years ago. Today’s systems benefit from 30 years of computer, communications, and materials advancement. ULTra’s test track, while smaller than Cabintaxi’s, has logged thousands of hours of testing.
So, to your insinuation that it doesn’t work: bunk.
Now let’s consider the Morgantown system. That’s a GRT, true, but it also operates in pure-PRT mode some of the time. It’s also fully automated with offline stations. Even if it has vehicles somewhat larger than PRT, it still demonstrates many of the features of PRT, and has run successfully for more than 30 years. The only fundamental difference between Morgantown and ULTra is that Morgantown is bigger and heavier, and must operate in group mode - but ULTra’s vehicles are so lightweight that they can carry single passengers for every trip and still be more efficient than Morgantown.
Furthermore, the European Union EDICT study(http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/newsanddoc/article_2650_en.htm) involved 5 cities and dozens of transit professionals and researchers. It was an extensive 5-year effort that studied all aspects of PRT in cities, and the conclusion was uneqivocal support. Note, these were not just PRT supporters: independent engineering consultants and non-PRT transit engineers also participated in the study.
Furthermore, there is the Daventry study, which was a very comprehensive engineering report (by SKM consulting) for the UK city of Daventry. They considered everything down to lighting in the station, and they recommended PRT over all other transit options. See: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/Daventry Scoping ToC.htm
Furthermore, there is Masdar - the ambitious car-free “carbon neutral city” being built as we speak in the United Arab Emirates. This is a multi-billion dollar effort involving renowned architect Norman Foster, MIT, and huge engineering consultancy C2HM. Guess what the primary mode of transport will be in this car-free city: PRT throughout.
Shall I go on? Are you still going to claim it won’t work against the opinions of hundreds (probably thousands) of engineers and consultants who are actually working to build it?
October 20th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Oops, the Daventry link didn’t paste correctly, here it is:
http://tinyurl.com/6nesgu
October 20th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
@ATES - ok, so there are no operational PRTs in the world today - not one. that much we’ve established.
i was just hoping i could get an answer as to how these PRT systems were going to ‘invade the suburbs’ as I put it. you know - once a PRT is deployed somewhere in the world, that is.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
PRT “invades the suburbs” the same way any other transit system does - you start with the densest areas first and expand to less dense areas as the system matures. The streets are not touched by PRT so suburbs will stick with auto traffic during the transition.
Basically, suburbs will get PRT when local transit planners decide they need it - why do you suppose there would be a problem? I guess I just don’t understand what you’re asking. There is nothing about suburbs that prevents PRT. Certainly, early systems will focus on cities where density is highest and the traffic crunch is most pronounced, but later suburbs can get it just as easily. And because PRT will not require operational subsidy (as rail does), more funds will be available for expansion than for a rail system - this should permit faster expansion of PRT.
Also, you keep harping on the fact that there are no operational PRTs - do you really have to see it in operation before you admit it’s possible? Do you really doubt the 40 years of research and thousands of respected professionals who have worked on this and who are building it? That’s not skepticism, that’s denial.
October 20th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
I guess I just don’t understand what you’re asking.
what, if any, infrastructure needs to be installed to support PRT? what will each neighborhood have running into it?
October 21st, 2008 at 5:49 am
Peter, don’t waste your time on these guys… they are just weird people who hate (real) transit. Here’s a video I made of them in April.
http://prt.blip.tv/file/876203/
More videos about PRT here:
http://prt.blip.tv/posts?view=archive&nsfw=dc
October 21st, 2008 at 5:57 am
PRT infrastructure for suburbs is an elevated guideway with stations, same as in cities. At a minimum, suburbs would likely have what suburbs have today in terms of transit: a few stations and park-and-ride lots scattered about. But PRT’s light infrastructure and network capability means it could cover more area in the suburb - a station near every suburban residential development, stations at the mall, etc.
But there’s a difference: with PRT, suburban service will be as flexible as city service. Typically today, suburban transit goes into the city and that’s it. If you’re going sideways, no luck unless you want to ride all the way into the city, transfer, and ride back out to your suburban destination.
But because PRT is a network, suburb-to-suburb travel will be just as convenient as intra-city or suburb-to-city travel.
Some systems propose a variation called “dual mode PRT”, which would allow PRT vehicles to leave the guideway and be human operated for the last 1/4 mile to the house. I don’t generally prefer these systems because they imply private ownership of vehicles and I think that complicates routing and city-side storage of vehicles, but several groups are working on such systems. Also, several single-mode PRT systems have long term plans to eventually allow dual-mode operation for the trip to your doorway, possibly involving low-speed automatic navigation on the street itself.
But the systems discussed at the Ithaca conference (and the one being deployed at Heathrow) are single-mode, and I believe that is the better approach for the initial phases. Single mode doesn’t offer to-the-door service, but it does promise high density stations (perhaps every 1/4 to 1/2 mile), direct point-to-point service, 24 hour operation, no waits, universal accessibility, and low operating costs - all of which are big improvements over existing transit.
October 21st, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Did that clarify it for you?
October 24th, 2008 at 12:41 am
MONORAIL!!!! MONORAIL!!!!!!! MONORAILLLLLLL!!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql744tSfnXM
And of all the garbage I just read in these comments from ATSE (Peter, just ignore the trolls, especially when unrelated to 1) bikes and 2) SF, especially)…
I have to respond to this: “PRT vehicles are all bicycle friendly, just roll your bike in and sit down. How can that not be attractive to bicyclists? ”
People who ride bikes like riding bikes- not rolling their bike into some fantastical monorail-car-for-one…
Here’s a few simple questions with what should be simple answers for you PRTists… what is the estimated cost per mile of this idea? Per rider expenses (regardless of local/federal subsidies)?
October 24th, 2008 at 12:51 am
..also, the second 1/2 of Ken Avidor’s video is pretty informative. These people have drank the Kool Aid hard but don’t know anything about it. Wowza.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Estimated cost per mile: $20-40M for a starter system, $15-30M long term per mile.
Per rider expenses: less than $2 per ride is projected to cover all operational costs PLUS capital costs - meaning that PRT could not only eliminate all subsidy, but even generate a modest profit.
These estimates are based on multiple independent engineering analyses - one such intensive analysis was done by SKM Consulting in the UK for the city of Daventry. See my earlier comments for links.
So on one side we have several engineering conglomerates (like C2HM Hill, a huge firm which has managed several multi-billion dollar projects like the Panama Canal renovation, and is now buiding the PRT-centric car-free Masdar City), MIT engineers, Foster & Parners design, and hundreds of transit professionals on 3 continents.
On the other side, we have a single cartoonist, who just happens to have ties to competing rail industry lobbying interests, and someone named “turtles”.
You decide.
As for bicyclists wanting to ride their bikes - yeah, but if you have to travel 20 miles across town, wouldn’t it be nice to have the OPTION to use a pod for part of your trip? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a pod for rainy days, or days when you’re in a hurry, or days when your under the weather and don’t feel like riding?
Tell me, where’s the downside for a bicyclist? If you are so adamant about not using a pod, you don’t have to use it, but you’ll still benefit from reduced congestion on the roads, so when you DO want to ride, you don’t have to battle as many cars.
Answer: for bicyclists, there is no downside to PRT, and plenty of upside. Which is why it really puzzles me to know that some of the most ardent critics of PRT are bicyclists. It doesn’t make any sense.
October 25th, 2008 at 12:02 am
1) There is no transit system ever that costs $2 per ride when you factor in capital and operational– ever. Bus (which is cheapest per ride) is still about $4-5. Your numbers are complete BS, no matter how you calculate it.
2) As for the $40-50 ‘for a starter system’ — I assume you mean the cost of building the huge infrastructure required for an above-road/building track system, which has no actual costs associated with purchasing land for entrances and support beams. You cannot install an above-ground system in a dense urban area without purchasing the land from private owners, which will cost you millions per mile, let alone actual physical building costs. C’mon…
3) I live in a community (San Francisco) that doesn’t require me to travel 20 miles anywhere– because I live a quality green life where I can ride my bike, walk, and take public transit when necessary. I don’t need a private motorized vehicle to get me where I need to go– be it an automobile or one of your silly pods.
4) Basically you Pod People are proposing a non-operator controlled car on a single-track, which leaves us with: the reduced autonomy that lead to the love of the automobile without improving energy efficiency of multi-passenger vehicles. It’s basically the worst of all the worlds– but hey, at least you don’t have to share your space with the poor people who ride the bus, so I guess you win…
October 25th, 2008 at 2:42 am
Turtles, to address each of your flawed points individually:
(1) $2 per ride break-even point is not my estimate. It is the estimate of respected engineering consultants who have no prior experience with PRT. So take it up with SKM Consulting if you don’t trust the $2 estimate. SKM is responsible for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of large scale infrastructural projects over the last 40 years.
(2) Once again, talk to the engineers from SKM, who have calculated the ~$40M estimate for a starter system based on extensive analysis of cities. Note: the amount of right-of-way required for PRT is trivial because has almost zero street-level impact. PRT ROW costs are more on par with power/cable/phone line ROW than a transit system.
(3) OK, so San Francisco doesn’t have streetcars? SF doesn’t have BART? SF doesn’t have automobiles and traffic congestion? Come on! You object to PRT while endorsing trains and buses - what kind of hypocritical position is that? PRT is a public TRANSIT system which is cheaper, greener, more efficient, more available, and more accessible than other systems, yet you rail against it even while purporting to support transit. That is a completely indefensible position. When SF eliminates all mechanized travel and becomes a modern day Beijing with 90% of commuters on bicycles, then perhaps your position will become reasonable; in today’s world, it’s pure hypocrisy.
(4) News flash, Turtles: people in the US already love their automobiles. Maybe you missed it - it happened right around 1950. Your argument that PRT will cause the masses to somehow discover “love of the automobile” is positively laughable! Now let’s take a step back from your fantasy world where everyone rides their bike to work and the masses haven’t yet discovered these newfangled automobiles - in the real world, PRT would get some of those 90% of people who would never go anywhere without their car, and get them onto the transit system.
Or we can continue to bury our heads under our shells (pun intended) and pretend that rail and buses will protect us from the evils of the automobile - they haven’t for the last 70 years and they won’t for the next 70 years, because they can’t efficiently cover every neighborhood with convenient, frequent service. PRT can do that - it can reach into neighborhoods and extend the reach of existing streetcars and metros, and do so for less cost per passenger than even low-frequency bus service. PRT can make transit on the whole more effective and more attractive - becoming a critical component of a city’s overall transit infrastructure along with metro rail systems and buses, and finally making inroads against the automobile.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:42 am
I’m a bike lover and reluctant car user, and very disappointed at the closemindedness of the author on this topic and his attachment to “proven technologies”. Trains and trams are 19th century, cars are 20th, and now it’s a new century. What’s wrong with having an open mind about the possibilities?
Coal ranges, iceboxes and outside toilets were 19th century “proven technology” too - so you better not have given up on these either.
Sure, YOU may never use prt no matter how convenient it might turn out to be because you love your bike and go everywhere on it. But the truth is you’d be in a very small minority. Most of the distance travelled by bikes is on the roofs of SUVs heading for recreational cycling areas!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
There is a rather large, PRT system that spans several countries. It’s called automobiles on freeways and roads.
The computer systems are distributed and relatively unreliable but have proven that only localized partial route information is necessary as well as only local sensors with some regional periodic broadcasts of general traffic conditions over radio waves. The financing scheme is distributed and essentially financed by the end user which has lead to an oversupply of vehicles hence requiring parking facilities but this personalization has allowed for certain marketing forces such as luxury vehicles and designed obsolescence to allow for a greater consumption that facilitates a production growth profit margin that has been attractive to investors and the end user indemnifies the vehicle manufacturers and the guideway providers of most of the liabilities involved.
Ultimately, PRT’s should be developed as it helps make the city become more pedestrian.
In general the concept has been proven, it’s now a matter of implementing it conscientiously instead of strictly for profit. I do believe that your criticisms are uncalled for primarily because they are an attempt to identify technical shortcomings, all of which can be addressed, it’s the sociological and profit motivation considerations that prevent the concept from being developed.
From a technical perspective, the concept must focus on a low cost per mile for the lines as it needs to be ubiquitous. Pilot projects need to include a long commute corridor in order to garner the support of those already accepting of mass transit even though this may initially be at the expense of other mass transit concepts. Control, routing and collision avoidance must be as localized as possible with peer to peer as well as central coordination communication, 100% central coordination may be an intractable problem, congestion may be better addressed with protocols much as it is in the communication field. Designs that avoid elevated pathways in residential neighborhoods or obscure visibility while in these neighborhoods will be needed to preserve privacy in subdivisions which are retrofitted for these systems rather than designed for them. The designs need to allow for elevated, surface and below grade portions. On board power storage designs requires a means of recharging perhaps inductively while on the longer tracks and while at stations, track delivered power should also be considered but not if it represents a significant increase in per mile costs. Track switching must allow for switching without changing directional orientation in order to allow for comfortable high speed lane changes (a double bogey system should suffice for this), this can also allow for offline sideways berthing without an extensive offline track in lower speed cells.
May 26th, 2009 at 6:41 am
PRT vendors sell concrete when they have great technology, I don’t get it.
What is with the skyway track, completely unnecessary. A well designed PodCar can follow a green line, just watch the green rather than the edge of a skyway.
Podcars work great with bicycles, the two can use the same lane safely in a marked lane.
Ultra has some of the supidest marketig people I have seen. There is a French version that just follows along any curb.
Better idea. Market the podcars running with bicycles and perhaps other ultralites. Skip the separate skyway, erase all of Ultra nonsensical simulated skyway jetson crap. That company is just ruining the environment for innovative technology, use the damn roads. The problem is not taking away lanes for bikes, the solution is combining podcars and bikes and keeping both separate from 2000 pound blocks of steel. Use a simple 4 inch curb to separate podcars and bikes from automobiles. Reduce the cost by about 50% as a result, quit listening to idiots from England.
Do it this way, and look at the sales pitch. Instead of a 20 million dolar small system, a city can buy one or 2 podcars, add a curb and try it out.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
The dedicated guideways for PRT’s is more of a safety and liability issue than anything else.
Sharing the pathways with cyclists motorists and pedestrians would prove to be a difficult task for the computers and would require that the PRT’s operate at lower speeds.
However the PRT concept is supposed to be inexpensive guideways, literally just I-beams and the idea is that they should be less to build than pedestrian paths as the loading would actually be less.
Unfortunately, all attempts at a PRT system so far has been perverted such that the guideways were overbuilt as well as the vehicles. The MorganTown system was supposed to be small cabs carrying no more than six passengers but when Boeing took over, it ballooned into the 12 passenger GRT that it is today. Also due to tight timeline for constructing the Morgantown system, the contractor for the guideways was told to design the guideway as if they were supporting LRT’s hence the huge concrete monstrosities. Likewise the Raytheon 2000 system was required to use proven parts for the undercarriage which meant designing the undercarriage and track out of off the shelf LRT parts again resulting in a monstrosity of a guideway.
Yes, utilizing existing roadways may be one way to economize on a PRT but that is hardly using inexpensive guideways. A road is built for cars and is overkill for PRT systems, the idea is to eventually supplant the need for roads and you can’t do that by relying on them.
August 2nd, 2009 at 6:55 am
First, let’s make clear that not all PRT systems are created equal. The one promoted by prtinternational is a lot better than the one pictured above–lighter, smaller cars, lighter, smaller guideways, faster speeds, virtually no chance of derailment, etc. Watch the video on that site for all the technical details you could want.
Second, these worries about PRT’s theoretical impact are misplaced. As John says, we already have a large network of private vehicles roadways. But there are several problems with this one. Just to name one of many: they are generally all at-grade, with the notable exception of freeways, and as such are more inefficient, slow, and dangerous than they would be if elevated. Elevating roadways is extremely expensive, though, which is why we don’t do it except for major roads. But PRT vehicles are comparatively lightweight, and as a result all it taxes is about a 3′x3′ steel guideway that can be erected in a matter of days for just a few tens of millions a mile–as opposed to the hundreds of millions a mile it costs to install at-grade light rail. This is one of the cheapest forms of transitway elevation.
Then there is the allegation that PRT looks too futuristic. All I can say is, grow up. If there’s a transit technology that can reduce car dependence and tempt people out of their cars and it’s cheaper, more efficient, faster and more attractive to riders than conventional transit, I don’t care what it looks like, I want it.
If PRT is adopted, there will be fewer cars on the road because people will have a fast, convenient and reliable transit option available to them. That means more room on the road for cyclists and pedestrians, not to mention emergency vehicles. Also, most forms of PRT are bike-friendly–you can take your bike on-board with you any time of day, even during rush hour, regardless of how many other riders are also taking their bikes. How many transit systems can say that?
PRT is nothing to be afraid of. In fact, PRT is just a natural and logical extension of conventional transit once you make all the marginal improvements you can make to it. Everybody likes more frequent service and express service; PRT just takes it to the extreme. When you take a conventional rail system and elevate it, automate it, and optimize it for speed and efficiency, PRT is what you get.
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 am
“And what about replacing some dependence on transit with dependence on walking and biking? We could do it for a fraction of the cost.”
You speak as if biking and transit are mutually exclusive. They’re not. Both are in the business of getting people out of their cars, they just do it in different ways. So yes, there should be more bike lanes and bike parking facilities, more and safer space for pedestrians, and more walkable/bikable cities. But what do you do when biking somewhere is just not practical, for whatever reason? Right now, unless you’re lucky enough to live near a decent transit system, you have to drive. Those of us in favor of PRT are trying to change that.
Also note that biking and transit are mutually-reinforcing. When there is good transit available, fewer people drive, and thus there is more room for cyclists on the street. Likewise when more people bike or walk, there is more demand for transit when those people need to get somewhere faster than biking or walking can get them there.
August 7th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I would agree with anonymous that walking/biking should be considered complementary to public transit. This would be where PRT would have an advantage as a bicycle could be brought onto a PRT vehicle at any time of the day whereas most LRT and bus systems forbid bicycles during rush hours.
The layout and the climate of a city has the greatest impact on commuting by foot or by bike. I grew up in a city with plenty of bike trails, an LRT system that you could bring the bikes onto and a vibrant inner city residential area. Even then, pedestrian and bicycle commuters were basically limited to the inner city neighborhoods and during the summer months. Now I live in a city where summertime temperatures exceed 100 Fahrenheit, and the inner city had been abandoned for decades and is only now being gentrified. In this city, neither public transit, pedestrian nor cycling is common but are making a bit of a revival in the inner city. I think that due to the high cost of freeways (a recent expansion project just completed at the cost of $163 million per mile), it would behoove us to lay out a PRT grid in the business cores (there are three business cores here) and run spines out along the commute corridors linking the various park and ride stations then encourage community developers to build local PRT grids into their subdivisions to link into the commute spines. There are a lot of people who would like to use public transit but do not due to the lack of comfort and convenience and PRT is the concept that attempts to bring the comfort and convenience of the private automobile to public transit.
Biking and transit should be mutually reinforcing and are to some degree with existing public transit but to integrate them during the commute hours requires something like the PRT concept.
No form of transit should be considered in isolation. Walking, biking, public transit, PRT, car rentals, efficient private vehicles and car sharing organizations work best together to bring a higher quality of living to all of us and hopefully reduce the costs to the public coffers.