I've oftened wished the bus would "appear" when I arrive at the bus stop. Such daydreaming often led to ideas about somehow combining personal vehicles and public transit. As usual, mine is not an original idea, as Jeremy Faludi over at WC points out:
Wouldn't it be nice to have a bus waiting for you every time you walked up to a stop? And wouldn't it be nice if the bus just went to your destination, without stopping anywhere else in between? The main reason people drive is for convenience like this. But if public transportation were as cheap as a bus and as convenient as a cab on roads with no traffic, why would anyone bother driving anymore? That's the idea behind "Personal Rapid Transit", an idea that's been around for forty years, but is still struggling to see the light of day.
What is PRT? This, according to Jeremy:
The basic idea is having an elevated track with personal-sized cars, only big enough for 2 to 4 people (and normally used for solo trips). Cars on the main track always go at full speed, with cars shunting off to side tracks for entry & exit at stations. These stations would be located a reasonably short distance from each other so users would never have to walk too far to get to a stop, and stations would always have empty cars waiting for the next user to arrive. This individualized service would be made possible by having all the vehicles automated--no human drivers in the system, just smart network-management software.
Head on over to WorldChanging to read more. What do y'all think?
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining
Washington Post features rail hack job from Robert Samuelson
Comments
View as Flat
gohlkus Posted 4:57 am
02 Mar 2006
This idea has been around a long time. Here's a well-written critique I found from a professor of transportation science: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/vuchic1.htm
Unintended consequence: PRT would make cities really, really ugly. To serve everybody, you'd basically have to have a huge grid of above-ground tracks almost every other block.
Also, you think graffiti on the bus is bad? Just think what it would be like if there were no one else in the "car." Public property damage galore. (I guess you could have live surveillance all the time... uh, no thanks.)
I think it's a better idea to further develop existing transportation systems. Build light rail in cities that don't have it. Expand systems and expand service in cities that do. Have more timed transfers and have robust bus systems that work into the light rail system. Create a network of safe bike lanes/trails and lots of free, safe bike parking at transit hubs. Investing in making public transit more desirable by building capacity and ease of use is a much better idea than PRT.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:04 am
02 Mar 2006
Permalink
Captain America Posted 5:19 am
02 Mar 2006
Until a bicycle is developed, that can handle sudden turns on ice-sheets, cars will be needed for short distance transportation.
..
America First
The World Second
Permalink
PRTsupporter Posted 6:12 am
02 Mar 2006
PRT would make cities really, really ugly. To serve everybody, you'd basically have to have a huge grid of above-ground tracks almost every other block.
I don't think the small PRT guideways would intrude too much in an already busy, congested downtown area. In other areas of the city, one-half mile between tracks wouldn't be any more intrusive than the existing highways, etc. The vehicle would be much quieter than autombiles.
PRT guideways would be much smaller and less intrusive than the existing Seattle Center Monorail guideway, and smaller than elevated light rail, which is being built.
The elevated guideways would be relative unintrusive to the existing buildings and streets. One post every 60 feet would not require buildings to be demolished, etc, like for other significant transportation system projects.
It might be doable, but would have to be expensive and people would have to be willing to give up cars
Why would people have to give up cars? Do they have to give up a car to ride a bus or a train?
It's expected to cost a fraction of what monorail and light rail cost. Have you read the Wikipedia article?
Permalink
PRTsupporter Posted 6:21 am
02 Mar 2006
I think PRT would be extremely high on "ease of use": go to any station, one of which would probably be only a few hundred yards away, and select any destination station, and be taken directly there without any stops.
You think learning which routes serve which areas, and which stop to get off to transfer to another route, is easier?
How about convenience: PRT vehicles would usually be waiting at each station, and almost never more than a few minutes away, and would take you to your destination station without transfer or stopping. This would be much quicker than waiting for your bus or train to come along, which may not take you near where you want to go.
Permalink
Avidor Posted 1:27 pm
03 Mar 2006
PRT is a ridiculous idea that has wasted a lot of time and money in dozens of cities all over the world.
It's sad to see Grist fall for it.
PRT is an infeasible transportation "system" that has a 30-year record of controversy and failure.
The biggest supporters of PRT are the usual anti-rail ransit suspects:
Senator Michele Bachmann
Representative Mark Olson (16b)
Emory Bundy
Learn more about the PRT scam at the PRT is a Joke web site.
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 1:56 am
04 Mar 2006
PRT is a ridiculous idea that has wasted a lot of time and money in dozens of cities all over the world.
It's sad to see Grist fall for it.
Fall for it? I don't recall anyone from Grist either endorsing or opposing PRTs. We simply started a discussion. But if simply discussing and debating an idea is "falling for it," I guess we're guilty.
Also:
Does anybody really think that people ... would cut down half the trees on their block for an elevated structure with a clear view into their bedroom window?
What I know about PRTs is what I read over at WC, thus very limited (which is why I wanted a discussion), however I believe that an elevated system is not the only option.
And lastly (from your Seattle PI opinion piece):
Basically, PRT is a stalking horse for the highway construction industry. PRT proponents can say things that the highway boosters could never say, such as "People don't like to ride with strangers." This anti-transit propaganda divides and conquers the opposition to highway projects.
I highly doubt that the guys over at WC (who I regard as intelligent and forward thinking) are in bed with the highway construction industry. So while the highway industry might have been behind past efforts, should that condemn an idea forever?
Also, it appears that one of the main reasons for your opposition is that PRTs could threaten existing public transit options. Do you have any suggestions for encouraging more people to use such systems?
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
PRTsupporter Posted 6:54 am
04 Mar 2006
More unfounded attacks on the technology? Weren't you beaten down enough on the Wikipedia talk page?
Are you still trying to turn this into some political campaign?
Read the PRT is a joke is a joke page.
Permalink
Mephisto and Associates LLP Posted 9:55 am
04 Mar 2006
I suppose that with enough persistence by wide-eyed Bucky-brains, some gullible or corrupt schmucks on a city council somewhere are going to finally drink the PRT Flavor-Aid. When they do, the first airborne pod in the wake of easy sabotage will at long last end this ridiculous discussion.
The laws of entropy, limits and unintended consequences are writ large on such cornucopian fantansies.
Permalink
Avidor Posted 11:35 am
04 Mar 2006
Why?
Because nobody wants PRT and nobody wants to pay for it.
The only people who promote PRT are against real transit like light rail transit (LRT).
Some people used to listen to the PRT promoters in Minneapolis... not since the our new LRT line began operating. The Hiawatha LRT is a huge success with ridership running over 2020 projections.
Want to get people out of their cars? Work to get more, quality rail transit that enhances and builds walkable, bikeable communities.
If you want to learn how to support real transit options, ask environmental groups like the Sierra Club or Transit for Livable Communities in the Twin Cities.
Speaking of TLC, download a PDF of their resolution against public funding of PRT.
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 5:17 pm
04 Mar 2006
He thinks that to love PRT, you must be a pro-highway, anti-transit car freak who only pushes PRT to kill light rail projects. Nothing could be further from the truth. From what I've seen, most PRT proponents actually seem to LIKE light rail, and public transit in general -- they just see PRT as a potentially revolutionary improvement to more traditional designs. These are people who are truly motivated to solve the transit problem, and are not slavish devotees to one particular mode or method. They are open minded enough to recognize that there might be a better way.
Avidor, on the other hand, is rabid in his support for light rail, and will attack any perceived threat to it.
Do yourselves a favor: take a look at Ken Avidor's site for yourself, and try to find one piece of substantive evidence that PRT is a hoax or a fraud. He can provide no such proof, because it doesn't exist. Really, when you think about it, it's pretty absurd to think that billions of dollars have been spent over 30 years on 3 continents to develop PRT systems -- just to divert people from transit projects! If you're still not convinced, see the Wikipedia entry on PRT for many verifyable references about this technology.
Avidor's technical argument is well known, and WELL-DEBUNKED. He never provides a technical argument himself, because he really doesn't understand it enough to debunk it technically. He relies on three main sources for his technical argument:
(1) A flawed technical analysis by an anonymous author on a light rail advocacy site. This analysis has been rebutted by at least 4 different PRT proponents, with detailed technical arguments to counter almost every point in the original lightrailnow report. The anonymous author of the lightrailnow analysis has never responded to these rebuttals.
(2) Vukan Vuchic - a transit professor at UPenn. Vuchic basically asserts that PRT is impractical for most situations, but provides only vague justification for his assertions. His analysis has been challenged by several PRT experts. Vuchic is also well known as a proponent of light rail transit.
(3) Two transit professionals, Michael Setty and Leroy Demery, who have labelled PRT as "gadgetbahn" -- i.e. irrelevant gadget technology. I've thoroughly searched of Setty's and Demery's web site, and I've found no technical analysis to justify their claims. In fact, they admit that they are biased against PRT (which they group with monorails and maglev under the "gadget transit" umbrella) and refuse to waste their clients' time analyzing it. So, in reality, their argument against PRT is more prejudicial than factual.
Avidor has also attempted to attack the Wikipedia entry on PRT. See the Wikipedia PRT talk page for a blow by blow account of his challenge. Despite a nearly month-long effort to kill this page, the best he could do was correct a few very minor outdated facts (relating to past PRT projects), and add some of his talking points to the "Cons" section. However, he could not challenge one single substantive fact in the article, and after a few weeks he gave up trying to twist the page for his own propaganda purposes.
So, when you see one of Avidor's posts, take it with a grain of salt. And, for that matter, I don't expect you to trust me either: check the facts yourself and you will see that none of his arguments hold water.
Permalink
Avidor Posted 12:15 am
05 Mar 2006
and this?
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 12:57 am
05 Mar 2006
"Are you the same "Transportation Enthusiast" who wrote this and this?"
Absolutely, positively, YES!
You are an evangelist, Avidor: uninterested in any fact that goes against your very narrow world view. There is very little difference between your views on PRT and a creationist's view on evolution: no amount of fact or evidence will change your mind -- it only makes you protest harder and with more venom.
You also seem to be unable to recognize satire when it is directed at you. This is particularly mystifying given that you are a cartoonist and therefore deal in satire every day!
As for the Wikipedia entries, I'm proud of every single syllable I wrote on those pages, even when things got a little nasty. I must admit I have a very short fuse when I encounter blatant misinformation being spread in such a methodical manner as you have, Avidor. I took the lead in successfully defending Wikipedia from your sustained attack and I am proud to say that you were unable to challenge one single substantive fact in that entire article!
Sure, there were some heated words exchanged along the way, but the integrity of the article was preserved, and I'm very proud of that.
But, you know, Avidor, it's not about me. It's about PRT. I don't expect anyone here to believe me or trust me. Go out there and check the facts yourselves. The Wikipedia PRT article is an excellent place to start. Go ahead, research it for yourselves. Follow the links. Borrow the textbooks from your local library. Then decide for yourselves whether Avidor's claims hold even a grain of truth.
Permalink
Avidor Posted 1:08 am
05 Mar 2006
Perhaps the best way to sort fact from fiction about PRT is to ask an investigative reporter to verify the claims of the PRT proponents.
It would be a simple matter to ask real engineers to peer review the Parsons Brinkerhoff OKI report. For instance, the PB engineers found that the slim columns and guideway designed by Ed Anderson would deflect three feet when a cab passed over the center of the span. It wouldn't cost much to run their data through a computer to determine whether that was true or not.
I would also ask the Sierra Club and other prominent environmental and transit-advcacy organizations like TLC to give their opinions on PRT.
Perhaps GRIST would consider an investigative article on PRT?
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 1:40 am
05 Mar 2006
The OKI report is part of Avidor's standard anti-PRT propaganda campaign. For full details on the report, including links to rebuttals, see the Wikipedia entry.
To summarize: OKI hired light rail consultants to evaluate PRT. This is like hiring Pat Robertson to evaluate a gay marriage bill. Of course they rejected it. The PRT designers have challenged the OKI conclusions with a 100-page rebuttal (again see the Wikipedia page).
Once again, I encourage people to find out for themselves. Don't trust me. The facts are all there for you to examine.
I also encourage GRIST to investigate, as Avidor requests them to do. PRT has nothing to hide.
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 2:15 am
05 Mar 2006
First, thanks for participating in Gristmill. We welcome new voices and perspectives.
But ... please keep the discussion productive and comments substantive, and refrain from any more personal attacks against each other.
Look out! It's a media shower!
Permalink
Avidor Posted 2:47 am
05 Mar 2006
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 3:10 am
05 Mar 2006
I would be more than happy to participate in a moderated technical debate on the merits of PRT, right here in this forum. No politics, no name calling, no "he said, she said". Just a technical, fact-based debate. Avidor, are you game?
Permalink
Avidor Posted 3:28 am
05 Mar 2006
I linked to other sites that have remarks by a poster on this board...that's not a "personal attack".
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 3:36 am
05 Mar 2006
At the request of Chris Shults, I'm not going to continue this "he said, she said" exercise in futility.
As I mentioned in my last message, I am more than willing to participate in a moderated technical debate on the facts of PRT.
I'll let you choose the first topic, but it has to be it's a technical, not political issue (I have no interest in Twin Cities politics).
Any time you're ready.
Permalink
Avidor Posted 4:39 am
05 Mar 2006
To date, no true, large-scale PRT system of any kind has been built. Attempts to build small-scale PRT have either failed (Raytheon) or been an expensive mistake like Morgantown (anyone who wants to argue that Morgantown is a PRT success story needs to read what riders say about Morgantown PRT).
But it isn't necessary to build a PRT system to determine whether it would work. A peer-reviewed study using computer simulations would settle most of the debates on the technical issues.
In the meantime, people can decide for themselves about the technical issues of one particular PRT design-Skyloop (Taxi 2000) by reading The 2001 OKI Central Loop Study .
Debating something that is neither defined nor exists is an exercise in futility.
However, the role of PRT promoters in shaping public transportation policy is very well documented in the media and on the web. PRT has been used by anti-transit individuals and groups to spread misinformation about real transit systems, in particular LRT.
Learn more about the PRT scam at the PRT is a Joke web site.
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 4:53 am
05 Mar 2006
Why are you so hesitant to debate the facts of PRT? Stop evading the issue. You claim to be an expert, so stand up and debate.
If you are having trouble selecting a topic, I'll get it started: safety and capacity. I assert: Given the same cost constraints, PRT can achieve higher capacity, greater coverage, and a higher degree of safety than it's primary competitor (at-grade light rail transit).
Do you dispute this notion, and, if so, on what technical grounds?
Permalink
Avidor Posted 5:33 am
05 Mar 2006
Bye!
Learn more about the PRT scam at the PRT is a Joke web site.
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 5:47 am
05 Mar 2006
His contributions are nothing but political propaganda and rhetoric. Whenever someone challenges him to a reasoned debate, he disappears with some excuse.
By the way, this is not an attack, it's fact. This is the third forum in which I've challenged Avidor to a technical debate, and the third time he's evaded me.
Permalink
Mephisto and Associates LLP Posted 1:09 pm
05 Mar 2006
Ken Avidor spends his days and nights spreading misinformation about PRT. He is obsessed ... rabid ...
He also kicks his dog and is mean to his mother! He even uses his real name! Of all the nerve!
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 1:46 pm
05 Mar 2006
I know nothing about his dog or his mother.
I do, however, know plenty about his history of unfairly bashing PRT without any valid factual justification. And that's all I care about.
Permalink
Mephisto and Associates LLP Posted 2:17 am
06 Mar 2006
I know nothing about his dog or his mother.
I've heard that his dog is a major PRT advocate. What dog wouldn't like a go-cart with a living room view?
Permalink
Captain America Posted 2:38 am
06 Mar 2006
1 Large Can of Baked Beans
Skate Board
Lighter
Pants With Large Hole At Buttocks
INSTRUCTIONS
a) Consume one large can of baked beans.
b) Wait one hour.
c) Mount Skate Board.
d) Bend over facing front of Skate Board
e) Fart
f) Ignite Fart with Lighter for propulsion
THEORY:
One can of baked beans should provide enough gas to propel one small person at least one mile.
..
America First
The World Second
Permalink
boa Posted 11:58 pm
08 Mar 2006
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 12:41 am
09 Mar 2006
Look at the way our road system works: extremely high-volume intersections guarded by nothing but traffic signals, and complete reliance on drivers following the rules. Intuitively, if it wasn't part of our daily lives, would we ever think it could work in the real world?
This is one of the big problems with PRT: it's so foreign to us that we have a difficult time believing it could ever work. And this is one of the main reasons why transit planners are scared off (especially when the anti-PRT fear mongerers relentlessly fan the flames of that fear)
Permalink
Avidor Posted 4:09 am
10 Mar 2006
http://innovative-transit.blogspot.com/2006/03/who-ran-crying-to-mommy.html
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17412357&postID=114174507956695911
Thanks for helping them, Grist.
Permalink
TransportEnthusiast Posted 6:02 am
10 Mar 2006
The Wikipedia entry is a great place to start, because it just survived a very bitter, prolonged POV (point of view) dispute, during which the factual portions of the article were largely untouched. In other words, even Avidor, who describes himself as PRT's fiercest critic, could not challenge one substantive fact about the basic fundamentals of PRT. This article is truly battle-hardened.
Permalink