This is amazing, Gar, but (though it may sound churlish to say so after 2000 words) I feel like you left out half the story. Namely: where is this in development? Who's developing it? Are there any towns or cities signed on to try it yet? Where does it stand in the real world? I want to know whether I should be excited or whether this is just another great idea Americans are resolutely ignoring.

Perhaps a follow-up post ...?

www.grist.org

Hello...Mr. Gar? Where's the real info? You leave the reader wondering if this is a scam. It all sounds just too fabulous. Do you work for CyberTran or something?

Yes, as  you say this is seeking a first real life installation.  It has been through a number of test runs. Because of the lightness not just of the car, but the tracks, elevation is very cheap.

But automated systems are no longer experimental. BART has been driverless since 1972.

It has been extensively run on test beds over a two year period. It is being ignored for the usual chicken egg reasons; no one wants to be the first to try something new. Also Federal rail funds specifically have a provision excluding their use for experimental systems.

And to the person who asked me, I have no financial relationship with CyberTran.

The article suggests that the CyberTran infrastructure costs will be in the area of 10% of a comparable conventional rail systems.  Since LRT systems today range from about US$ 20 million per km to US$ 40 million per km, that would imply CyberTran is only US$ 2 million to US$ 4 million per km.  

Even more boldly the article goes on to say: "To replace buses with a form of transit that is less expensive, more convenient, and more comfortable would be a kindness to city and commuter bus riders, and to the cars that currently share the streets with them."

If CyberTran is less expensive than bus system, then it would have to be less than US$ 1 million per km.  

These statements are very difficult to believe.  An automated system such as CyberTran will have to be grade-separated (elevated or underground).  An automated surface-level system would create safety problems for pedestrians and other vehicles.  

The lowest cost grade-separated system in the world right now is the Kuala Lumpur monorail and it costs in the range of US$ 25 million to US$ 30 million per km.

I hope the numbers implied in the article are correct since it would be quite an impressive accomplishment.  On the other hand, making outlandish claims merely to gain investors will ultimately harm the project's credibility.  One should be careful in not being too reckless with the possible costs.

I could swear that every BART train I've ever been on has a driver calling out the stops, waiting until everyone has boarded to close the doors and move forward, etc.

As other posters have said, driverless trains are viable in contain areas (e.g. airports) and otherwise in urban areas they need to be grade-separated.  The idea of ANY grade-separated system being infrastructure-cost-competitive with bus lines is hard for me to believe.

In the initial stages of this system, wouldn't the system resemble a train?  Because there wouldn't be a lot of stops, right?  Also: How is it that you would never be required to stop?  If the car in front of you has decided to stop, you'll need to stop as well, right?  I guess there could be multiple lanes and traffic and all that, but at some point wont this system of tracks closely parallel our system of roads?  This is not as convenient as a car.  Are the tracks easier to maintain than roads, even when it snows?  Is the main advantage that you don't have to drive?  If so, why not alter our existing roads enough to have driver less cabs on it?  If the issue is that normal cars pollute too much, why not tax that pollution?  If the issue is congestion, raise fees or increase capacity.  I don't think that the problem with cars and commuting is the roads.

>Also: How is it that you would never be required to stop?  If the car in front of you has decided to stop, you'll need to stop as well, right?

No, that is one of the points! Because of light track and light cars, switches are only ~$6,000. So every stop is offline on a siding! Your train only has to stop at a stop where someone is exiting or entering. Not at a stop where some other train is letting someone off!

>The lowest cost grade-separated system in the world right now is the Kuala Lumpur monorail and it costs in the range of US$ 25 million to US$ 30 million per km.

The estimate for CyberTran is $4 million per mile, which is ~2.5 million per kilometer. The reason it is so much cheaper is that with lighter cars you use much lighter rail. No cross ties, and the steel is such a light grade. A muscular man can pick up a three meter length of it in one hand. (Try that with conventional railway ties.) That means elevation is very close in cost to running it on the ground. Much of the cost of rail is leveling and site preparation. Because of the lower weight, you normally don't have to level or grade the sites the elevated rail runs on.

And no, you do NOT have to get down to 1 million per kilometer to compete with most (highly inefficient) U.S. bus systems.

For example in the Austin example I gave, routes in Austin total around 210 miles. At 4 million per mile, this is around an 820 million dollar capital cost. (And yes, the 4 million per mile is for both ways, not a one way trip.)

"I hear those things are awfully loud..." Nonsense! It glides as softly as a cloud.

Seriously, though, PRT (not to be confused with driverless transit, which works well in, say, Vancouver) has never progressed beyond the pipe dream stage, despite literally billions of dollars of tax dollars thrown at it from all kinds of directions (usually from government). What has changed this time? Who calculated these cost estimates? The same people who claim that monorails cost 50% less, since they have just one rail?

The cheapest, most sustainable way of getting around is walking, which, incidentally, is also good for you and often fun. Instead of waiting for some pie in the sky technological fix, we could just build our cities around walking, a solution that existed before we ever realized that we had a "congestion problem."

BTW, I voted "no." Simple logic dictates that,  in a dense urban area with very high peak hour flows, individuals occupying large amounts of personal space will result in congestion. It does on today's highway system and on today's transit system, and it would on any PRT system as well.

I note you make no analysis - just "simple common sense". The same "simple common sense" that leads people to believe humans are too small and insignificant to be major contributors to global warming. Sure, tear down all our existing cities, and rebuild them from scratch. That will be a lot easier than adding light rail. In terms of the accuracy of the figures - they are available in the papers I linked. Double check them.

In 1993, King County here in Washington held public debates on their proposed mass transit systems.

Metro, the regional transit agency, offered three plans, all involving some mix of busways and rail.   They did not come up with these plans proactivity, but were pressed by voters, hoping for a miracle solution.

There was a 3 Billion dollar plan, a 6 billion dollar plan and an 11 billion dollar plan.   When pressed, they said at the meeting that the 3B and 6B plans would alleviate traffic by -- zero percent.  And the 11B plan would alliviate traffic from 0 to 3 percent, at best.

Hmm...the problem here is that there is no area dense enough to support mass transit.

I proposed to them a different idea: make taxi service cheaper and more computerized.   I would basically take all the software of CyberTrans, but not build any of the hardware and instead use existing roadways and high milage vehicles.   The cost of the taxis would be subsidized at the same rates as the "mass" projects.   It would provide numerous jobs for drivers.   The computer systems would optimize the taxis to allow multiple pickups without delaying people by more than a few minutes.

People who don't want cars would not have to have them.   It would reduce cars for commuters by at least 1/3rd (three people per car, plus driver, assuming we didn't use Suburbans or minivans).

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.

but "logic." No PRT system I've ever examined has been able to get around the problem of moving very large passenger flows -- like, say, rush hour loads in many cities -- without gumming up into exactly the same congestion that plagues the existing Personal Transit network (the roads). (Roads in many cities are already heavily technologically managed, thanks to techniques from metered ramps to variable tolling.) Moving and storing enough vehicles to move 10,000 people into a downtown within an hour (a reasonable capacity for light rail) is no easy feat.

Even ULTra PRT's spokespeople don't make such a claim.

On principle, I very, very seriously doubt any single solution, particularly any technological solution like PRT, that claims to be a panacea. Everything has a downside, and PRT is by no means an exception to that rule.

  It seems to me that the emptier the cars, the higher the cost per passenger mile.

  So, if people often ride alone, how cheap can it be?

  If the cars and rail are so light, what happens during a heavy wind?  

  The claim that bus riders often suffer harrassment (and the suggestion that cyber train riders somehow won't) is specious at best.  This should be obvious.

  The big problem, even if all the other claims are true, is where will you lay the tracks?  The sheer amount of land required to replicate bus service is tremendous, and seems to make this a non-starter for existing cities.

patrick

ULTra from ATS (link at bottom of the article) now has an order for a track at Heathrow airport's new Terminal 5.  

I think they have a far better solution because you get your own personal vehicle so you choose where you go.  This differentiates it from the CyberTran system in that you don't have to wait for other people or be sorted into groups and put on one train.  Essentially it's somewhere between a taxi and a bus - you get your own vehicle which takes you almost all of the way to your destination by the most direct route. It also removes the harrassment problem suggested above.

Check out the ULTra website.  It's got some video simulations and a lot more background information.  CyberTran isn't the only game in town people!

Here, as in many parts of the developing world, travelling alone means you're more vulnerable to criminal attack. People on trains in South Africa will often seek out the most-full cars to have some 'backup' in case the gangsters strike.

Think about it...

Cheers

Whiskerfish

You do NOT ride alone in CyberTran. They hold up to twenty people and will average 40% full. However if you get an uncomfortable feel, the time penalty for waiting for another train is low.

That not an insignificant problem. I ride public transit. You get teenangers who like shout insults at the rest of the passenger. You can end with the only seat being next to a mumbling drunk.  I'm not a women, but many of my friends tell me that sexual harrassment is sometimes a problem on transit as well. I've also had my pocket picked on a standing room only bus. Being able to skip a train that looks like your experience will be miserable is not a small problem.

And not CyberTran is not the only solution out there. I linked to PRT. PRT is more expensive though, because you are multiplying cars and motors. Most of the proposals also use rubber tires, which reduces energy efficiency a bit.

And in terms of still having congestion - with no on-line stops, and all the vehicles moving at the same speed you can get very crowed indeed without congestion or slowing.  It is an advantage of computer control. (It better not run on Windows though.) That is the experimental part, and is a reason it does need testing in a real world case, before considering widespread deployment. I think what we really need is a beta test program for CyberTran, and the PRT systems too. Fund one small system in each of a number of small towns. System maker to supply the system on a turnkey basis. Fixed price (no overruns). No progress payments, payment only after delivery, passing of all tests, and successful operation for a month.

And of course it is not a panacea. It is not door-to-door. You still have to get from your home to the CyberTran stop, and from the CyberTran stop to your desitination.

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...

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...

In spite of the reputation it sometimes has serious crime is generally not a crime on public transit. Murders, armed robbery, rape and such are comparatively rare. Also when it comes to real danger, public transit has a much better record than automobiles. So add that in, and you are much safer on transit than in car.

Public transit suffers in three ways in comparison to automobiles. One is the inconvenience that it is generally a slower way to get where you are going than automobile. (DOT statistics confirm that it takes about twice as long to get somewhere as by car. The second is the chance you will be subjected to petty harassment, name calling, rudeness, minor sexual harassment, possibly petty crime such as pickpocketing. The third is the chance you will have to stand, and that in general your bus or train will be uncomfortable crowed.

In terms of stations, you can get mugged in a parking lot with a car too.

Perfection what would be nice, but the big thing is to reduce the ways in which transit is less comfortable than automobile. PRT (or CyberTran which though a form of utlralight rail really is not quite PRT - both in terms of some of the advantages and some of the disadvantage) reducds many of the negative differences between  mass transit and auto travel. Not all of them - but once you are guaranteed a comfortable seat, the ability to sit back and relax , read if you want to chat if you want to, whatever on your trip will make up for any minor difference is journey length. Hopefully time difference will be much smaller than the two to one ratio you currently run.

Not to say that  your points are not valid . It does reduce the small danger of serious crime that exists in conventional transit even further. But you have a lot better chance of being mugged on a street or parking lot in NY than on the subway. (Not that NY criminal reputation is not an exaggeration in any case.) I think in terms of getting people to ride, reducing inconvenience will be the more important selling point than reducing danger.

... this reminds me of monorail in Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway.

I'm not down on the idea, it just really smacks of the Lanley Institute of monorail conducting with an eventual MCAT certification (Monorail Conductors Aptitude Test).

I have enjoyed reading the questions and comments.  I will try to answer a few questions. Cost estimates have been 50-90% reduction compared to conventional.   Monorail these days is about $100M/mile.  A recent LA light rail project - $80M/mile.  Automated People Movers - over $100M/mile.  In those applications we are estimating $10-20M/mile, depending on ground conditions.

Capacity - a highway lane carries peak around 2500 cars per hour.  CyberTran can carry between 5-10,000 passengers per hour per direction, or 2-4 lane miles.  One outside report suggests that we will be able to carry up to 16,000 pphpd in the future.

How it's done is a combination of vehicle control and scheduling, and 20 passenger vehicles.  The key is to invest in the US in innovative transit systems.  We are one of the last industrial nations not to do so.

The environmental and foreign policy effects of the current auto-centric society do not make us in any sense secure, to say nothing of global warming.  CybeTran is a much more energy efficient way to move people, with electricity that can be made from any source including solar.  Bottom line folks is, where there is a will there is a way.

Hi Neil - what about the 4 million per mile estimate from the CTPAPER pdf? Is that now obsolete? I'm think for lighter traffic example - Austin rather than LA.

It may be possible to reach the lower costs, though time has elapsed since the late Dr. Dearien reached those estimates.  In fact, one consulting firm estimated the whole structure at 2.7M.  However, commodity prices have increased and bumped those numbers up.

The best way to keep the numbers low is to achieve high volume modular construction.  We estimate a potential for 30,000 miles in the US along major arterials.  Once scales of economy have been achieved, we can build .25 miles of guideway from a single construction point per day, and we can build the track off the end of itself.  Then we will find out how low costs can go.

For now, while our commodity prices have gone up over time, since there is much more material in other systems, their costs have gone up even more.  Soft cost reductions can also be achieved through private-public partnerships.