UP|Urban Transit http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forums.html Sat, 10 May 2008 15:18:49 -0500 30 UP|Urban Transit http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forums.html Videos of rail transit around the world...




]]> Fri, 09 May 2008 12:45:50 -0500 InitialD Videos of rail transit around the world...


]]> Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:03:49 -0500 ZachariahDaMan Interchanges
http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=s&lat=30.16...379&zoom=17

This is the older I10 and I295 in Jacksonville, FL. Notice how much simpler this one is.

http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=s&lat=30.31...514&zoom=17

This is I295 (Currently named 9a) and Butler Blvd in Jacksonville, FL. It is almost finished. This one will be interesting.

http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=s&lat=30.25...584&zoom=17




]]> Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:29:19 -0500 pinetree221 Ultra Rapid Transit System http://www.taxi2000.com/
It is also called Sky Web Express.]]> Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:50:33 -0500 tobias Interchanges In Wilmington, NC there is a development called Mayfaire which has a two way round-a-bout. Chew on that for a moment... its asinine.... You should see the confusion it creates. Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:02:47 -0500 sean Interchanges That looks like a mess... Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:42:00 -0500 phoenixnc Interchanges Houston

Katy Freeway at Beltway 8 Before Reconstruction


Photo by Erik Slotboom.

Katy Freeway at Beltway 8 After Reconstruction*


* Rendering of Katy Freeway after completion.






Construction]]> Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:51:35 -0500 urbanhouston <![CDATA[Is Boston's Big Dig a Big Mistake?]]> - no Blue/Red connection
- no North/South link (Green/Orange to Red... meh)
- only real connection to Logan is the Silver (shuttle to Blue to anything else... ouch)
- the entire concept of the Silver Line
- Green B having way too many stops in such short distance of one another
- Green E's "temporary suspension"
- the rust buckets on Blue
- Worcester's terrible commuter connection

I could keep going, that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.]]> Sun, 23 Mar 2008 18:37:07 -0500 Lowerdeck <![CDATA[Is Boston's Big Dig a Big Mistake?]]> Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:21:09 -0500 cloudship <![CDATA[Is Boston's Big Dig a Big Mistake?]]>
I will say this. Yes, there's problems with leaks. Yes, the leadership was incredibly inefficient and made things way worse. But as said, there are many benefits to having open space connecting the North End and downtown slash Quincy Market/Fanueil Hall area again. A nice park in center city, more pedestrian friendly connecting the two neighborhoods. Traffic flows have improved in the area and from the outlying areas to Logan (as long as you know where the hell you're doing, which is a battle on itself.)

Getting improvements for mass transit is another battle for another day. Yes they should have done that connection between North and South Stations. It would have been wise, but it's not totally crucial. It's the same in New York between GCT and Penn Station ... how much travel between the two do you really expect? Nice yes, pivotal no.

Green E to Arborway won't happen, unless that line gets buried from Heath St. (or even Symphony) southward to Arborway. The trains apparently caused too many problems along the streets there, and I can imagine it's only worse since the drivers around here have a sense of entitlement and go around like maniacs.

Let battles be fought one at a time, soon enough we will see good mass transit in Greater Boston. If you start seeing little things coming done, like Blue to Lynn or Green to Medford, one will start rolling right after the other and the area will benefit in the long run.





* = I was born in Worcester and live in a suburb outside there, but on the CT side of the state line. For the sake of argument, since my area's sphere of influence is (connected to) Mass. (more than Conn.), I say Mass.]]> Sat, 22 Mar 2008 14:37:42 -0500 Lowerdeck <![CDATA[Is Boston's Big Dig a Big Mistake?]]>
QUOTE (tracer1138 @ Feb 16 2007, 05:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Wow, I'm surprised and sorry that you see it that way.
In my opinion, tearing down the Embarcadero was one of the best things that could have happened to San Fran's waterfront. It did more than open up views to Condo Owners. I've been down there and now people walk along the waterfront, go shoppin in the ferry terminal and fill the trolley cars on their way to Fisherman's Wharf and pier 39.
It's like opening up your front porch to welcome in the world.

Would you rather say "Wow, San Francisco, what beautiful city with a gorgeous, lively waterfront and spectacular bay views" or "San Francisco, they're highways are really wide and it's so easy to park!".
]]> Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:53:02 -0500 Twoaday Proposed Light Rail Systems
QUOTE (FortWorthology @ Oct 6 2007, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The system being proposed in Fort Worth:



Yes, i <3 Light rail. bring a healthy dose to Tallahassee]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2008 17:07:04 -0500 TallahasseeDowntown BRT loading areas
QUOTE (cityskip @ Mar 10 2008, 09:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Does anyone know of any well-designed BRT loading areas (pre-pay waiting areas)? Especially ones in areas with considerable pedestrian congestion?


The MBTA Silver Line has 3 full fledged underground stations.]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:35:07 -0500 TheBostonian BRT loading areas
here is a link to the wiki page at wikipedia for further reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rede_Integrada_de_Transporte]]> Fri, 14 Mar 2008 02:29:24 -0500 RON-E BRT loading areas Does anyone know of any well-designed BRT loading areas (pre-pay waiting areas)? Especially ones in areas with considerable pedestrian congestion? Mon, 10 Mar 2008 20:46:23 -0500 cityskip Heavy Rail Mass Transit | North America
QUOTE (phoenixnc @ Feb 3 2008, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Chicago's was good, but less convienient and it seemed very slow as well. I've heard there are a lot of problems with the tracks there.


Hopefully the situation in Chicago will change with the CTA's committment to eliminate of slow zones. Still NYC is the best system I've been on.]]> Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:59:29 -0500 chazman Hoover Dam getsa By-pass Bridge
QUOTE (rbdetsport @ Mar 3 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Thats going to be weird.


can you elaborate on that?

whats weird about it? im curious...

i like it, i think it is a beautiful structure that will take the threat of terrorism off of the bridge .....somewhat.....
.]]> Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:37:14 -0600 RON-E Underground automated goods transportation system?
QUOTE (Neo @ Mar 6 2008, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Low-tech Magazine has an interesting article up about underground automated transportation systems for consumer goods in Europe. It's been done before and obviously never caught on since we don't hear much about it today, but it is an interesting concept if someone were to get it right.

It's an interesting alternative to shipping items using the congested roadways, conventional train systems, etc. I honestly don't think this type of shipping system will ever catch on, but I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on this type of system.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/a-world-without.html



Seems like a great idea but hugely expensive where there are not already tunnels. This is a great use of technology but it has been done in the past. Maybe with the increase in street shipping, underground units will look cheaper. Chicago had a tunnel delivery system in use until the 50s and it was part of the reason of the flood during the 90s. Here is a video about it.



]]> Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:47:31 -0600 mgman Underground automated goods transportation system?
It's an interesting alternative to shipping items using the congested roadways, conventional train systems, etc. I honestly don't think this type of shipping system will ever catch on, but I'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on this type of system.

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/02/a-world-without.html]]> Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:05:27 -0600 Neo Hoover Dam getsa By-pass Bridge Thats going to be weird. Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:34:31 -0600 rbdetsport Videos of rail transit around the world...
QUOTE (GRDadof3 @ Feb 27 2008, 10:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I do too Neo. happy.gif

Check out this one in India:



Yikes!


Scary indeed. It's in Indonesia though. If it were India, 500 people would have been hanging from the sides and roof of the train!!!]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 16:26:56 -0600 lammius Videos of rail transit around the world... Minneapolis Light Rail: the following videos capture the entire Hiawatha route from downtown MPLS. to the MOA








Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl. Airport Lindbergh Terminal Tram:


Minneapolis - St. Paul Intl. Airport Concourse C Tram:


Under Construction: NorthStar Commuter Rail: select video by choosing city name
http://www.mn-getonboard.com/calculator/qt/index.html]]> Sat, 01 Mar 2008 02:49:00 -0600 Minneapolitan Videos of rail transit around the world...

Check out this one in India:



Yikes!]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:52:28 -0600 GRDadof3 Videos of rail transit around the world...
"PATH Train arriving at World Trade Center Station" (view from bottom of Ground 0 Pit)


PATH train departing Hoboken and scenes from Hoboken Terminal (and birds???)


"Hoboken Subway Star"


"Romes Sings Bon Jovi on the PATH Train" God I love Jersey


"PATH Tranny"
]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2008 01:00:53 -0600 lammius Videos of rail transit around the world...
Little Metro subway in Israel (very odd system that is on an incline):


One of the fastest trains in the world:


Light rail system from my own city (Charlotte):
]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:42:13 -0600 Neo <![CDATA["Light Rail" vs. "Streetcars"]]>
QUOTE (ChiefJoJo @ Dec 12 2007, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I usually think of streetcars as almost always running on the street, at grade, in mixed traffic... similar to the Portland Streetcar. I think of light rail as tending to run in it's own right-of-way, but also being nimble enough to run in mixed traffic in certain applications. Portland's MAX also fits this definition nicely. Around the center city, it operates in it's own lanes, but runs directly on the downtown city streets at grade. When the line moves just outside of the center city area, it typically operates in an exclusive ROW.


Being a consumer of the Portland system I never really understood the difference other than the funding for the street car was privately driven. There is a bit of difference in the size/weight but the Max and the Streetcar are pretty similar. The Streetcar does operate as a single vehicle.

Both are great and both have made a big difference in the Portland metro area.

One other thing that lines up with ChiefJoJo's remarks. The Max has stretches where it travels very quickly on dedicated track and no stops. The Streetcar sticks to a central area where it is always traveling on city streets.

Again, as a consumer both work well for me. They influence where I invest. Similar to how I invest in London the Tube is a different category.
]]> Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:35:39 -0600 REI Animated map of the NYC subway system construction... I didnt know the first subways were out in Brooklyn! Its also interesting to see how most of the subway lines intitially were built outside of down and midtown manhatten...almost counterintuitive to how we plan for transit now. No wonder NYC is so shaped by transit. Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:53:20 -0600 mackeast <![CDATA[Toronto's 401: Busiest Freeway in North America]]>
I think that among Houston freeways, there is one stretch near downtown of 16 lanes in four segments, but it is very brief (0.25 mile). US- 59 has 16 total lanes at the intersection with 610 around the Galleria. I think the "winner for Houston is the newly constructed portion of 610 between I-10 and US 290. 17 total lanes... five main lanes on each direction, 3 feeders on one side, two feeders on the other, and two floating HOVs.]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:33:44 -0600 totheskies Good bus route maps - examples?
QUOTE (sean @ Feb 5 2008, 11:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The Pittsburgh system map is the most appealing to me. Depicting the bus lines and how they relate to the river helps anchor my understanding of the subject. In contrast, the Atlanta system map and the Detroit system maps are very minimalist and they abstract the geography. Different strokes for different folks.

Are you a Cartographer?
]]> Sat, 09 Feb 2008 02:55:28 -0600 theurbanryan <![CDATA[Toronto's 401: Busiest Freeway in North America]]> WOW! I commute on a 10 lane Highway not counting the 2 HOV lanes or exits (I-84 east of Hartford CT). Its not overwhelming, but It is a busy and large road. Not so sure I would like the commute on the 401, and I grew up on Long Island where we invented the superhighway (495) Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:43:37 -0600 The Voice of Reason <![CDATA[A "Smart" idea?]]>
If anything, these will be great for dealing with urban parking issues. In Europe, I saw lots of them parked head on (or back in) perpendicularly into parallel parking spots.
I wonder if US cities will allow them to do the same here....hopefully they will. So far, the one I've seen parked here was parked normally. Guess he was afraid of being the first and some confused meter maid giving him a ticket. laugh.gif]]> Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:32:17 -0600 RaleighRob Good bus route maps - examples?
Are you a Cartographer?]]> Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:32:50 -0600 sean Good bus route maps - examples?
Just to clarify, I mean route map that you'd find in a printed timetable or schedule, not a system map. Here's a few examples to get started.

Here's my hometown, and my route. MARTA, Atlanta GA - schematic map, not geographically accurate.
http://www.itsmarta.com/getthere/buspages/113.html

Metro Transit, Minneapolis MN - I like the level of detail. And that the timetable has a map of where the route travels in the service area on the front cover. (PDF warning)
http://www.metrotransit.org/images/routes/022.pdf

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), greater Detroit, MI - I like SMART's corridor-oriented timetables (they group schedules together by shared segments, with up to 2 or 3 routes per timetable) and show all of them on the map.
http://www.smartbus.org/smart/images/Maps/...AINW670H479.jpg

Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh PA - I'm a fan of the inset and attempts at geographic accuracy.
http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/apps/maps/11D.gif


What does the Urban Planet community think? Post an example or two. And a disclaimer: this is my first post here.]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2008 22:00:08 -0600 theurbanryan Heavy Rail Mass Transit | North America
QUOTE (phoenixnc @ Feb 3 2008, 09:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
DC was easily the cleanest, but it felt sterile. When I was in town, a student was taken into custody for eating on the subway.


are you kidding me?!?! that's absolutely ridiculous. many people use the time of their commute for breakfast. that's just nuts.

i wasn't overly thrilled with the DC metro, though everyone raves about how wonderful it is. NYC is by far the best i've been on (atlanta, philly, boston, NYC, DC). DC was clean, but it didn't get you literally everywhere like NY, and you need a phd to figure out how much your fare is.]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2008 21:45:10 -0600 runawayjim Heavy Rail Mass Transit | North America
NY has the best density of stations and you can go pretty much anywhere. I didn't feel unsafe, but the stations REALLY need to be cleaned and have better lighting installed. There is so much charm with the old stations and low ceilings, but they have to be cleaned and redone to stay in the future.

Chicago's was good, but less convienient and it seemed very slow as well. I've heard there are a lot of problems with the tracks there.

DC was easily the cleanest, but it felt sterile. When I was in town, a student was taken into custody for eating on the subway. It also didn't serve the areas I wanted to go... it seemed more for tourists than actual residents, and the payment system was confusing.]]> Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:51:19 -0600 phoenixnc <![CDATA[Charlotte, North Carolina's light rail system open Nov 24, 2007]]>
Uptown Station







A clear example of a transit oriented development (note the cross streets)

]]> Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:23:27 -0600 Twoaday <![CDATA[Walt Disney's vision of future transportation]]>
But even beyond the monorail, there are a lot of interesting ideas at the parks for transportation. Most of their ride systems are simply small versions of automated movers - the Universe of Energy is fascinating because the ride theater vehicles run but automated guidance wires and have no tracks. And the Tomorrowland Transit Authority is a LIM-driven people mover which has been working quite reliably and steadily for a couple of decades now. But the best is actually Pooh's Hunny Hunt in Tokyo. These cars move completely independently, not attached to each other and not guided by a track. They are all directed by a central computer. This is in fact a very small scale kind of peoplemover system, with a controlling computer guiding each car independently.

If you want a video of it, here is one: Pooh's Hunny Hunt on YouTube]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:30:17 -0600 cloudship <![CDATA[Walt Disney's vision of future transportation]]>
Interestingly enough the monorail used at Disney World is a quite competent system and would be a benefit in any city that was looking for transit.]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:56:00 -0600 monsoon <![CDATA[Walt Disney's vision of future transportation]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2008 00:50:18 -0600 kdub1 Ultra Rapid Transit System
QUOTE (monsoon @ Jan 16 2008, 11:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
^If those people wish to come here and respond to my points then they are more than welcome. But none of the basic problems I have listed have been addressed which I find typical of alternative but exotic transit technology advocacy.


Um, have you read any of our replies? Steve and I have responded to every single one of your concerns with detailed, research-backed replies. If you have specific objections to any of it, then say so, but all you've provided is vague generalizations like "it's not efficient", even as we've explained to you (in detail, with references) that your conceptions are wrong.

Let's start with the efficiency point: I believe I addressed efficiency earlier in this thread, and you didn't respond to my points, yet you still say PRT is inefficient. Here is a research paper by JE Anderson which outlines the case for PRT efficiency. I can elaborate on more if you like, but the basic issue is this: PRT scales down as well as it scales up. Rail transit is fine during peak times, but is abysmally inefficient off-hours. This is why trains run at reduced schedules at night and on weekends.

In essence, PRT is so efficient at providing off-peak service that it is overall much more efficient that rail or buses. So even though trains and buses might be a little more efficient than PRT when packed full in rush hour, they are so inefficient at other times that PRT wins out overall. And PRT does it while providing round-the-clock no-wait service that no train or bus could ever provide except in the most dense neighborhoods - and even then at a huge cost.

If you have specific objections to these claims, then lets debate them here. But as long as you continue to dismiss these arguments with no counter argument of your own, we'll just go continue to around in circles.]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 23:11:55 -0600 TrEn Ultra Rapid Transit System
QUOTE (steveraneyC21 @ Jan 16 2008, 10:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Says Monsoon:
If one looks at this rendering it immediately shows the shortcomings of this concept. Imagine each of those automobiles replaced by a PRT car on a track. All you have done is move the congestion, inefficient use of resources and expensive vehicles off the street and on to a more confining and restrictive track. Instead of wasting money on something like this, light rail would be a much better choice.
I don't understand why it is a good idea to move all these vehicles onto a track. It doesn't solve any problems.
Monsoon,

Did you see the quotes by Calthorpe and Sir Peter Hall? These people might not be as smart as you, but they have very strong professional reputations and they went to school for a long time and they wrote alot of books that a bunch of people read and their books are ranked as some of the all-time Top 50 by Planetizen. I think it says alot that they believe in PRT. It's pretty interesting to see Calthorpe hammer on 19th century LRT technology. He's saying that LRT is a bad choice for circulator applications (this is because LRT provides low LOS in such situations). He's not saying that LRT is always bad, but he's saying that he needs really great circulator technology to create great smart growth / new urbanist places.

I have the impression that you are pretty intelligent and a good problem solver. I believe you could answer some of these PRT questions yourself. Also, I don't think you're giving the PRT industry much credit for solving the issues you raise. Anyone who considers working on a PRT project has to figure out decent answers to your questions before they take on PRT as a vocation - the point is that it's very hard come up with any novel objections to PRT that haven't been addressed via design - the large set of PRT issues is quite well known. If PRT is such a dumb idea, why are smart people working on it?

1. Taxis make multiple trips per day, cars used in commuting sit there for 10 hours being unproductive. PRT works by that same, more-productive-than-a-car-that-sits-around taxi analogy. Hence, PRT vehicles are much more productive than cars.

2A. For carpool commuting, let's look at a 3 person carpool. One car carrying 3 people comes to a big job center and parks, and two out of the 3 commuters distributes themselves to their offices via PRT. At lunchtime, the 3 workers may take PRT to go get lunch, zoom over to the gym, go shopping, etc. So, in this example, we've saved 2 cars from coming to the job center.

2B. For transit commutes, folks indicate that, if a great last mile solution exists, they're more willing to solve their first mile solution. So, in the instance where PRT entices folks to commute via "first mile - line haul transit (including LRT) - PRT last mile," a car is saved in each instance.

Here's a peer-reviewed paper on PRT as part of a comprehensive mobility solution to get commuters out of their cars: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Suburban Silver Bullet: PRT Shuttle and Wireless Commute Assistant with Cellular Location Tracking, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Number 1872, December 2004, pp. 62-70. http://www.cities21.org/PRT_Wireless_TRB_111503_web.pdf



]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:47:09 -0600 cloudship Ultra Rapid Transit System
QUOTE (monsoon @ Jan 16 2008, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't understand why it is a good idea to move all these vehicles onto a track. It doesn't solve any problems.


If you don't understand, then I will be happy to explain it to you. rolleyes.gif

The basic reason for the track is that it facilitates automated control - automated solutions that run on regular roads are a much more difficult technological problem, whereas control algorithms for dedicated, segregated guideways are much simpler. In fact, the problem of automated control of vehicles on a fixed guideway is essentially solved. PRT pioneer JE Anderson has published detailed, peer reviewed academic papers on this topic. It's simple physics.

Roads, on the other hand, have too many variables for an automated system to work. Road navigation is a distinctly human trait that is very difficult and error prone to automate. Sure, we're starting to see baby steps in that direction - self-parking automobiles are an example - but the leap from self parking car to fully automated automobile operating in highway traffic is huge. We won't see anything like it in the next 20 years, at least. So if you want full automation, you need a guideway. And full automation is the only way to provide automobile-like convenience for a reasonable cost in a public system. Taxis come close - they are a public system that provide automobile-like convenience - but they are very expensive because they require a driver, and therefore only accessible to the wealthy.

A side benefit of the segregated track is that it leaves the street level to pedestrians -which is much safer and would enhance walkability in cities.

You must also understand that a single PRT guideway, even operating at low speeds and moderate headways, has significantly more capacity than a single lane on a city street. This is because control algorithms can automatically optimize and reroute traffic - there are no stop signs or traffic signals in PRT, because the control algorithms know where every single vehicle is located down to an inch resolution, and can fully utilize every inch of guideway capacity.

Intersections restrict road traffic so much that freeways were introduced into the road network in order to support demand. Because of the lack of intersections, the carrying capacity of a freeway is much higher than a city street, but freeways also have this minor little drawback that they destroy the fabric of cities. So for the automobile, you have two choices: plain old city streets that are gridlocked because they can't handle all the traffic, or freeways that decimate neighborhoods into oblivion.

So you have a city like Boston which, when faced with the choice of freeways or gridlock, instead chose to bury all their freeways underground - a solution that seemed really innovative until the endless construction problems pushed costs to absurd levels - tens of billions of dollars!

Other cities try to do it with rail, and have some limited success - but we all know that people in huge numbers will choose their car over rail because of the convenience factor. Rail helps, no doubt, but the automobile still wins by a long shot. Even in dense cities like NYC with great rail networks, auto traffic is bad.

Now consider PRT. A single guideway running at moderate speeds and headways can provide nearly the capacity of a freeway lane while barely touching the street. If the guideway network density is high (a guideway every few blocks) you can achieve the equivalent capacity of a full fledged freeway network criss-crossing the city without any impact to the street level. Furthermore, parking needs (another huge problem in cities) are vastly reduced because PRT vehicles are constantly reused - and can be automatically stowed away in a remote storage facility when demand is low.

So a well developed PRT network provides the capacity of a freeway, the convenience of a private automobile, no parking requirements, no impact to pedestrians or bicyclists, ubiquitous availability for anyone who can afford a $1 fare, very low operating costs that can be supported fully by fares, zero local emissions, accessibility for the disabled, and better safety and energy efficiency than any other mode of transportation.

And, furthermore: many studies (even by PRT critics!) have shown that people would be willing to abandon their cars for PRT in record numbers - some estimate that 30% or more of automobile drivers would switch to PRT for their daily commute. Compare this to other transit options which rarely attract even 5% from their cars.

People, this is not marketing fluff - dozens of independent research groups have studied PRT for 4 decades and have all come to these same conclusions, while nobody has yet disproved a single one of these claims.

Does this answer your question as to the problems that PRT solves?]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:28:11 -0600 TrEn Ultra Rapid Transit System
As far as the "last mile" goes, that can be solved by a park and ride lot, bike lanes, and village riders. It's much much less expensive, more practical and in most of the USA the only alternative that is going to be built. I can't imagine that any municipal government would consider PRT as a serious contender for their very limited transit dollars.]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:13:19 -0600 monsoon Ultra Rapid Transit System If one looks at this rendering it immediately shows the shortcomings of this concept. Imagine each of those automobiles replaced by a PRT car on a track. All you have done is move the congestion, inefficient use of resources and expensive vehicles off the street and on to a more confining and restrictive track. Instead of wasting money on something like this, light rail would be a much better choice.
I don't understand why it is a good idea to move all these vehicles onto a track. It doesn't solve any problems.
Monsoon,

Did you see the quotes by Calthorpe and Sir Peter Hall? These people might not be as smart as you, but they have very strong professional reputations and they went to school for a long time and they wrote alot of books that a bunch of people read and their books are ranked as some of the all-time Top 50 by Planetizen. I think it says alot that they believe in PRT. It's pretty interesting to see Calthorpe hammer on 19th century LRT technology. He's saying that LRT is a bad choice for circulator applications (this is because LRT provides low LOS in such situations). He's not saying that LRT is always bad, but he's saying that he needs really great circulator technology to create great smart growth / new urbanist places.

I have the impression that you are pretty intelligent and a good problem solver. I believe you could answer some of these PRT questions yourself. Also, I don't think you're giving the PRT industry much credit for solving the issues you raise. Anyone who considers working on a PRT project has to figure out decent answers to your questions before they take on PRT as a vocation - the point is that it's very hard come up with any novel objections to PRT that haven't been addressed via design - the large set of PRT issues is quite well known. If PRT is such a dumb idea, why are smart people working on it?

1. Taxis make multiple trips per day, cars used in commuting sit there for 10 hours being unproductive. PRT works by that same, more-productive-than-a-car-that-sits-around taxi analogy. Hence, PRT vehicles are much more productive than cars.

2A. For carpool commuting, let's look at a 3 person carpool. One car carrying 3 people comes to a big job center and parks, and two out of the 3 commuters distributes themselves to their offices via PRT. At lunchtime, the 3 workers may take PRT to go get lunch, zoom over to the gym, go shopping, etc. So, in this example, we've saved 2 cars from coming to the job center.

2B. For transit commutes, folks indicate that, if a great last mile solution exists, they're more willing to solve their first mile solution. So, in the instance where PRT entices folks to commute via "first mile - line haul transit (including LRT) - PRT last mile," a car is saved in each instance.

Here's a peer-reviewed paper on PRT as part of a comprehensive mobility solution to get commuters out of their cars: Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Suburban Silver Bullet: PRT Shuttle and Wireless Commute Assistant with Cellular Location Tracking, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, Number 1872, December 2004, pp. 62-70. http://www.cities21.org/PRT_Wireless_TRB_111503_web.pdf


]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:58:01 -0600 steveraneyC21 Ultra Rapid Transit System
I don't understand why it is a good idea to move all these vehicles onto a track. It doesn't solve any problems.

]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:18:51 -0600 monsoon Ultra Rapid Transit System
QUOTE (cloudship @ Jan 16 2008, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I am sorry, but something like this is a very scary thing.


I'll ask again: why would a well lit station with no hiding places and covered by video surveillance attract violent criminals? What criminal in his right mind would force himself into a vehicle on a captive guideway whose only entrance/exit is these well-lit, video patrolled stations? Especially when they can much more easily stalk prey in a remote section of a parking garage, where there are hiding places aplenty and the automobile itself can be used as a getaway.

A criminal would have to be an idiot to choose a PRT station for a violent crime.

Even if PRT were susceptible to violent crime (and I think it's clear that it's not), this would make it no different than subway stations or parking lots.

QUOTE (cloudship @ Jan 16 2008, 07:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Trains can grow and shrink more economically.


Huh? Are you actually saying it's easier to grow/shrink a train than it would be for idle PRT vehicles to remain in a station? A train's greatest weakness is that it cannot scale for off-peak operation.

Even if you could delink rail cars, the smallest is probably 100 times bigger than a PRT pod, which means off peak operation of trains involves moving the equivalent of 100 pods up and down the line, just in case there happens to be a passenger waiting at one of the stations. Whereas, PRT pods sit in a station idle until needed, and when a passenger arrives, only move 1/100th of the weight that a train would have to move to carry that passenger.

It's not even close. PRT is orders of magnitude more efficient than trains in low peak times.

QUOTE
And we don't know about the safety issue yet. Wait until the first fire or electrical problem.


Every day thousands of trains, buses, subways and cars carry billions of people, and the incidence of fire/electrical problems is exceedingly rare, except when triggered by a collision. There is no reason to believe that a PRT system built with the same kinds of components would be any more susceptible to such issues, especially since PRT control algorithms eliminate collisions.

This is yet another example of people fearing something they have no direct experience with. PRT is just an automated electric car on a guideway, yet people seem to think it will be fraught with hidden dangers. Meanwhile, they are driving an automobile that is proven to be far and away the most dangerous form of transportation. It's textbook irrational fear of the unknown.]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:14:35 -0600 TrEn Ultra Rapid Transit System
QUOTE (TrEn @ Jan 15 2008, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I've seen this argument before, and it doesn't make sense to me. How is this any different than a single woman walking to her automobile in a remote parking lot? I'll tell you how it's different: the remote parking lot is surrounded by other cars where a rapist can hide; the remote parking lot may not be well lit, and will not be covered monitored by surveillence cameras. A PRT station, on the other hand, is not likely located in a remote place; it's well lit; there are no dark corners where a rapist can hide; and there are security cameras.

Furthermore, what rapist would force himself into a vehicle where he is CAPTIVE? Think about it: a rapist would committing a felony in a vehicle which he cannot control and which is taking him to an unknown destination! For all he knows, that vehicle is going to a crowded marketplace where he will be immediately exposed to dozens of witnesses. Hey, it could be going to a station right in front of a police station! He'd have to be incredibly stupid to do something like this.

Compare this to the dark parking lot: once the rapist has forced his way into your automobile, he can gain complete control and go wherever he wants.

So my question is: given these risks, why on earth would a rapist (or any violent criminal) choose PRT over a dark alley or remote parking lot?


Nothing! And that's the point. That's why it is recommended not to park in lonely parking lots at night. But if you have a big parking lot, it's likely there because at some point it isn't lonely and dark. But the parking lot cannot shrink itself when everyone goes home. Same with the PRT. Sometimes those stations are going to be crowded. Sometimes they are going to be empty. THAT''s when the problem starts. Are you going to have someone monitoring every second of every single PRT car? Do you think people would even support that kind of monitoring? And what is to stop the criminal, for whatever crime, from directing the car to someplace else? What makes you think that the victim is going to hop out and suddenly call rape or mugging or anything? I wish people would do that, but one of the big problems with these kinds of crimes is that the victim is scared into saying nothing. I am sorry, but something like this is a very scary thing.

QUOTE (TrEn @ Jan 15 2008, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You are misunderstanding PRT. There is no allocation in PRT; vehicles go when needed, and stay when not needed. When a vehicle leaves a station with a passenger, the system can automatically send an empty vehicle to that station so that one is available for the next passenger. This is all implicit to PRT control algorithms.

And I confess, I don't understand your argument that increasing the number of cars in use would make PRT "too heavy to be efficient". PRT vehicles are all the same size, and only move in response to demand, so they are equally efficient in heavy volumes as light volumes. It is trains, not PRT, that suffer from off peak inefficiencies due to empty trains.


The problem lies in that you have to have enough vehicles to handle peak demand. This is what makes cars so much of a problem. At peak times you have too many vehicles trying to access the same infrastructure. To even come close to meeting that demand, you have to overbuild for the low periods. The same thing will happen with a PRT - to meet the peak demands, you are going to need more car, and faster through-put. When you fill that need, if you are in the typical commuting environment, you will have a huge system lying idle with lots of vehicles in storage during slow times. Trains can grow and shrink more economically. The problem is that it is sometimes labor intensive to do this on some systems, and complicated to figure out the demands of travel and appropriately staff. So they simply average things out. And the very same could, and very well might, happen to a PRT system. If you are going to go through the trouble to so heavily automate a PRT system, that same kind fo system can have much more impact on a more typical transit solution.

QUOTE (TrEn @ Jan 15 2008, 11:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
PRT will never replace the automobile for most people, and there is nothing about PRT that takes away your ability to own and use a car. But it does give you the option to leave the car at home for certain types of trips. Examples: use PRT for your daily commute, use your car to go to the supermarket. Use PRT to go to dinner downtown; use your car for a day trip out to the country. PRT is complementary to cars and other forms of transit.

And let's face it: as compared to a daily commute in rush hour traffic, PRT would be a compelling alternative: cheaper, potentially faster, and you can read the morning paper instead of trying to merge into an endless line of stopped traffic. And, I might add: PRT is much safer than an automobile.


I am not trying to say there is no place for PRT. I think it makes lots of sense in a large campus type of environment, where there are steady demands and reasonable levels of safety already. But I don't think PRT would work as a commuting alternative, and I don't think it has any real benefit over cars outside of the neatness factor. And we don't know about the safety issue yet. Wait until the first fire or electrical problem.]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:19:42 -0600 cloudship Ultra Rapid Transit System



The $50MM figure given was given by the press, and this includes the equity investment by BAA in Advanced Transport Systems, makers of ULTra PRT. BAA will spend less than $50MM on the Heathrow ULTra system itself. The costs I gave, $10MM to $15MM per mile, still hold.





Here are some comments by well-known urban planners about PRT:




Peter Calthorpe of Calthorpe Associates & Fregonese Calthorpe: We need better transit circulator technology: personal rapid transit:

    <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">In a six-page paper, <A href="http://www.calthorpe.com/clippings/UrbanNet1216.pdf">http://www.calthorpe.com/clippings/UrbanNet1216.pdf , Calthorpe writes: "All the advantages of New Urbanism - its compact land saving density, its walkable mix of uses, and its integrated range of housing opportunities - would be supported and amplified by a circulation system that offers fundamentally different choices in mobility and access. Smart Growth and new Urbanism have begun the work of redefining America's twenty-first century development paradigms. Now it is time to redefine the circulation armature that supports them. It is short sighted to think that significant changes in land-use and regional structure can be realized without fundamentally reordering our circulation system." <LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in">At the CNU '05 conference, Calthorpe said, "One of my pet peeves is that we've been dealing with 19th Century transit technology. We can do better. We can have ultra light elevated transit systems (personal rapid transit) with lightweight vehicles. Because the vehicles are lighter, the system will use less energy. I used to be a PRT skeptic, but now the technology is there. It won't be easy to develop PRT technology and get all the kinks out, but it is doable. If you think about what you'd want from the ideal transit technology, it's PRT: a) stations right where you are, within walking distance, b) no waiting."
  • "We've been building too much TOD without the T. PRT is the T."
Sir Peter Hall: "The social perception of public transportation depends on the quality of the transportation. I think we may be looking to technological advances in public transportation to create new kinds of personal rapid transit. We had a big breakthrough announced only a week ago that a British system called, literally, PRT, Personal Rapid Transit, is going to be adapted for Heathrow Airport progressively over the next ten years. And when you drive your car into Heathrow to one of the parking lots, you will get your own personal vehicle and program it to go to your terminal, or vice versa. And if this is as successful as I think it will be, this could be a big breakthrough in developing new kinds of totally personalized rapid transit, which could transform our cities in ways that we can't yet see." Dec 15, 2005, Natl Building Museum.

]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2008 23:59:26 -0600 steveraneyC21 Ultra Rapid Transit System
QUOTE (cloudship @ Jan 15 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
But can you imagine the first time a single woman is riding gets in, someone at the last minute hops in the car with her and then rapes her?


I've seen this argument before, and it doesn't make sense to me. How is this any different than a single woman walking to her automobile in a remote parking lot? I'll tell you how it's different: the remote parking lot is surrounded by other cars where a rapist can hide; the remote parking lot may not be well lit, and will not be covered monitored by surveillence cameras. A PRT station, on the other hand, is not likely located in a remote place; it's well lit; there are no dark corners where a rapist can hide; and there are security cameras.

Furthermore, what rapist would force himself into a vehicle where he is CAPTIVE? Think about it: a rapist would committing a felony in a vehicle which he cannot control and which is taking him to an unknown destination! For all he knows, that vehicle is going to a crowded marketplace where he will be immediately exposed to dozens of witnesses. Hey, it could be going to a station right in front of a police station! He'd have to be incredibly stupid to do something like this.

Compare this to the dark parking lot: once the rapist has forced his way into your automobile, he can gain complete control and go wherever he wants.

So my question is: given these risks, why on earth would a rapist (or any violent criminal) choose PRT over a dark alley or remote parking lot?

QUOTE (cloudship @ Jan 15 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You also face a huge problem if you have peak ridership. A college has peaks between classes, but those peaks are very close and even out. But as a commuter type instrument, you would have to allocate for huge demands in the morning and evening, with low demand middle of the day. In theory, you could easily vary the number of cars available, but by the time you build a system robust enough to handle those high demands, you are too heavy to be efficient with light volume use.


You are misunderstanding PRT. There is no allocation in PRT; vehicles go when needed, and stay when not needed. When a vehicle leaves a station with a passenger, the system can automatically send an empty vehicle to that station so that one is available for the next passenger. This is all implicit to PRT control algorithms.

And I confess, I don't understand your argument that increasing the number of cars in use would make PRT "too heavy to be efficient". PRT vehicles are all the same size, and only move in response to demand, so they are equally efficient in heavy volumes as light volumes. It is trains, not PRT, that suffer from off peak inefficiencies due to empty trains.

QUOTE (cloudship @ Jan 15 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The biggest problem, of course, is that it doesn't address what people really like about their cars. It's not the point to point travl - it's the fact that it is your OWN SPACE. Not something you ride in for a while - but a place where you are in control, where you can store your stuff, leave when you want and remain when you want. It's not about where you are going, but what you are bringing with you - your own little mini-room.


PRT will never replace the automobile for most people, and there is nothing about PRT that takes away your ability to own and use a car. But it does give you the option to leave the car at home for certain types of trips. Examples: use PRT for your daily commute, use your car to go to the supermarket. Use PRT to go to dinner downtown; use your car for a day trip out to the country. PRT is complementary to cars and other forms of transit.

And let's face it: as compared to a daily commute in rush hour traffic, PRT would be a compelling alternative: cheaper, potentially faster, and you can read the morning paper instead of trying to merge into an endless line of stopped traffic. And, I might add: PRT is much safer than an automobile.]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:15:26 -0600 TrEn Ultra Rapid Transit System
The problems with PRT conceptually, though, are specifically dues to the fact that it IS personal. First and foremost you have safety issues. In a controlled environment where you can assure everyone will get their own private car, and you aren't likely to have someone who will jump in the car with you, this isn't a huge problem. But can you imagine the first time a single woman is riding gets in, someone at the last minute hops in the car with her and then rapes her? The lack of privacy of a group transit solution also serves as a benefit in this case. You also have a huge issue of vandalism from kids riding around, without anyone being able to see what they do. I could only imagine the problems you would face in a depressed neighborhood with drugs and prostitution (unless, of course, that IS the goal! : ) )

You also face a huge problem if you have peak ridership. A college has peaks between classes, but those peaks are very close and even out. But as a commuter type instrument, you would have to allocate for huge demands in the morning and evening, with low demand middle of the day. In theory, you could easily vary the number of cars available, but by the time you build a system robust enough to handle those high demands, you are too heavy to be efficient with light volume use.

The biggest problem, of course, is that it doesn't address what people really like about their cars. It's not the point to point travl - it's the fact that it is your OWN SPACE. Not something you ride in for a while - but a place where you are in control, where you can store your stuff, leave when you want and remain when you want. It's not about where you are going, but what you are bringing with you - your own little mini-room.

Actually, we already have PRT available, although it really only works from point A to point B. The aerial gondola and chairlift are essentially PRT systems that only operate between two points. Detachable cars or chairs can leave as needed (except for balance) and are only used by one group.]]> Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:17:47 -0600 cloudship