MrGrant’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  "Pretty Retarded Train"

  And the university seems to like it, featuring a PRT "family" in a new series of promotional videos.

  ------- Hey, you got your talking points on my peanut butter...

  On Dirty water and clean transit in the Mountain State posted 9 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Driverless taxis

  There are just as many positive comments on the Web about the WVU proto-PRT. Yes it's old and relies on the technology available when it was built in the 1970s, but it gets the job done. The technology available to Masdar (as well as competing systems at Heathrow and in Sweden) are somewhat more modern. It wouldn't be a surprise if WVU chose to upgrade its entire system to one of the new designs.

  ------- Hey, you got your talking points on my peanut butter...

  On Dirty water and clean transit in the Mountain State posted 9 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thinking

  Have thought about it. There are two locations a rider is vulnerable:

  a. at the station. Train: You have to wait for the scheduled train; at night you may have to wait a while, and during that time you are vulnerable. PRT: on-demand travel, so you board immediately or almost immediately. This applies to everyone, so people loitering in the station late at night is suspicious. PRT station would be remotely monitored to discourage crime.

  b. in the vehicle. Train: you have noted the dynamics. PRT: persons boarding would be alone or in a party of acquaintances traveling together. Once in motion there is no opportunity for others to board and make trouble.

  Is there another situation you can think of?

  ------- Hey, you got your talking points on my peanut butter...

  On Public transit that would work in Houston posted 2 years, 12 months ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  not common sense?

  One cannot really comment on your evaluation of PRT  rush hour load without knowing your base assumptions, e.g. PRT fleet size, avg trip length, numbers of berths per station, avg. dwell time, etc.

  Furthermore, I am 99.999% sure that no first-stage PRT implementation will be given the theoretical burden you pose. I hope PRT is allowed to grow into high capacity as the technology is refined, rather than being set up to fail.

  Indeed, the serious PRT companies, engineering consultants, advocacy groups, and governments like the EU and Swedes are at present proposing PRT for niche applications such as airport shuttles and collector-feeders to train stations.

  ------- Hey, you got your talking points on my peanut butter...

  On Public transit that would work in Houston posted 2 years, 12 months ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Operating characteristics

  I'm a member of ATRA, an association of engineers and policy types advocating wider adoption of automated transit technology, including new technologies.

  This article seems to make much of the privacy/personal safety aspects of proposed small-vehicle mass transit. However, it would be incorrect to assume that such considerations are a reason behind Group Rapid Transit systems like CyberTran as well as PRT.

  Rather, privacy or group selection is a byproduct of GRT and PRT operating characteristics. When a vehicle has fewer seats, it increases the odds that you will be riding by yourself. The odds increase when you add on-demand service that is direct-to-destination--the chances are usually very small that another person is going to need to go from the same station A to the same station B at exactly the same time as you.

  To sum up: you will ride by yourself or with few strangers on GRT and PRT because it is more efficient, not because it is thought people are anti-social.On Public transit that would work in Houston posted 2 years, 12 months ago 29 Responses