New Thoughts in Public Transportation 576
Matthew Shaylor writes "The BBC has the following article about an ultramodern public transport system to be tested in Cardif. Unlike conventional public transport, this consists of small cars that running on tracks can automatically take themselves to the correct destination. This allows there to be a mesh of tracks and stations thoughout a city, as opposed to traditional transport which tends to run along corridor routes to a city center. An interesting paper is available. Future versions may have dual control to allow people to drive the cars from the nearest station off the track to their homes. A true replacement for the car!"
interestingly like logan's run (Score:2, Interesting)
Cargo capacity? (Score:2, Interesting)
Bikes (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm v.pleased to see from the photo that they will allow bikes to be taken aboard.
The combination of bike and public transport is perfect for me and many others.
Re:Bikes (Score:2)
Why is not having to lug yourselves around in 6000 pounds of metal so unappealing?
Re:Bikes (Score:2)
{flame on}
Ah... what a nice load of steaming crap that sentance is.
How does (the assumption of) not using something mean we're "threatend" by it? Is a vegatarian "threatened" by beef if she or he doesn't eat it? Am I "threatened" by Paulie Shore movies because I refuse to watch them.
Don't confuse not using something with malice.
Why is not having to lug yourselves around in 6000 pounds of metal so unappealing?
Why to you is it? Uh, maybe because its different stokes for different folks. It may seem unfathomable to you but maybe some people like driving around in tanks (I don't, but that's just me). Since when did the world revolve around what satsujin thinks?
{Flame off}
SUVs threaten the passengers of a normal vehicle (Score:3, Offtopic)
Why to you is it?
{begin rant} Simple (at least for me) -- SUVs excessively threaten me as the driver of a normal vehicle.
How?:
1. excessive weight and energy -- my car is 3000 lbs gross, while a suburban is 8600 lbs (http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/engine_sub/8100 .htm). So, the suburban is carrying more than double the energy in a collision.
2. high bumpers, which conveniently miss most of the crumple zone of my vehicle, magnifying the hazard of the excess weight of the SUV.
3. poor handling relative to a normal vehicle, which increases the chance of a collision.
4. SUV drivers with no clue as to how to handle these limitations.
5. the fat, tall, and opaque behind of an SUV blocks my view of potential trouble ahead.
6. I observe that SUV drivers are more prone to poor driving -- Left Lane Banditry (failing to keep right except to pass), and wandering all over the road whilst Driving While Yakking/shaving/reading/disciplining their rug rats.
I would mitigate these hazards as follows:
1. SUV speed limit is 80% of the posted limit (limit 70 mph -> SUV limit of 56), which reduces the crash energy by 36% (one half m v squared.) Ban SUVs from the passing and HOV lanes.
2. tax SUV owners on a per mile driven and per pound basis, to compensate for the increased wear on the road. Heck, tax all drivers this way.
3. SUV owners pay $2000/year/SUV into a SUV victims fund.
4. remove the business tax preferences to SUVs.
{end rant}
Ok, so I'm dreaming. Sue me.
Re:Bikes (Score:3, Insightful)
That is an incorrect assumption! The benefits of a well designed and implemented mass transit system are much more far reaching than solely to the individuals actually using the system.
For example:
There is less traffic so the SUV drivers have an easier time squandering our non-renewable resources.
There are less emissions so the same SUV driving folks have cleaner air
These are only a few advantages that everyone could enjoy if only a few more Americans ease up on there death grip on their SUV' s and preconceptions on mass transit.
Reality Check: (Score:3, Interesting)
And just where might this system be?
The only and best known cases of mass transit that work are the ones where there is absolutely no other choice that can be made. For example, access to downtown New York City is impractical in most motor vehicles. The transportation models for motor vehicles don't scale to that density. Everyone uses public transportation not because they want to but because nothing else works. But I live on a farm, not New York City. Their solutions don't scale to me either.
And also, before you continue on your anti-SUV line of rant, consider what vehicle options a family of five should use: No, I don't have enough room in an econo-box for my wife, an aging mother in law, and two small children in child safety seats. Our alternatives are 1) two cars, 2) a minivan, 3) a large sedan or station wagon, or 4) an SUV.
Options 2, and 3 have similar efficiencies. Option 4 is only slightly worse, Option 1 is simply impractical. Just so you know, my wife and I chose option 3.
Believe me, I'd drive a smaller vehicle in an instant if I thought it were feasible. But it ain't gonna happen for many years. Neither is it likely that I'll see any form of public transportation out where I live.
You talk about squandering natural resources. Ever study what it takes to run a city? Ever really wonder whether there truly is an economy of scale there? Well, I suspect you won't like the answer.
Before you go green with stupidity, think. Think about how mass transit works when you're carting around three or more dependents. Think about what a mass transit system is supposed to do during off-peak hours. Yes, cities may have economies of scale, but they also have the overhead of distribution systems. And if that's not enough, think about failure modes.
Clearly the guys who wrote the article believe in autopilots. That's nice. Do you trust your neighbor to maintain this autopilot so that it won't fail catastrophically? How about the instrumentation that feeds it? Clearly when even one such control system goes wrong the consequences are far greater than if just one idiot runs a red light.
Don't think you can coerce your neighbors to use what you use. Successful systems work because they appeal to everyone. SUVs appeal to many families because there really isn't anything with the safety and capacity that these things have. Yes, I'd like economy too. But which features do you think are more popular?
Enjoy your nice haven in the city. Just remember what supports it, and remember that yours isn't the one and only way of life.
Re:Reality Check: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm, people use it to go to nightclubs and drink without risk of DWI? People use it to travel between points in the city same as they do at peak-time? Don't limit your thinking to commuters.
I used to live in a large city (London) with (fairly) good and (definitely) extensive public transport, and it worked pretty well. I and many people I knew didn't have a car at all. The city is also friendly to pedestrians, unlike moderate-sized towns in the US (my experience is limited here to a few - Tucson, Reno, suburbs of DC).
When I lived in London, I walked a lot of places. That was safe, environmentally friendly, and healthy for me. Aside from transporting goods, there's not much reason to have to drive.
minor corrections (Score:3, Informative)
$675 million. Half comes from the Federal Transit Administration, another $50 million from a federal CMAQ grant. Rest from various state/local sources. The biggest chunk pays for the extraordinary tunnel project under the airport.
It's not meant to benefit anyone in particular. It's meant to provide people with options. Yes, not a lot of people at the moment. The hope is for the line to become part of a regional transit system (including the Dan Patch corridor, Riverview, North Star, Hwy 61 corridor, etc.).
You're judging it with a time horizon of only a few years. It's an expensive project, but viewing it with a 30 or 40 year perspective and assuming the development of a network, it will be quite different. That's all rather optimistic at the moment, however.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of it. But that's the thinking, at any rate.
ahh.. majority rules. minority bites! (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you call a cyclist on glare ice? (Score:2)
Seriously, this morning it was about 20 F ( -2 C ) with slippery, new fallen snow on the ground. No one was going past 55 on the expressway (normal speed of 65). Living in upstate New York, bicycles are impractical many times a year.
As a kid I rode in winter, but it was dangerous enough that I took old tires and stuffed them with newspapers and embedded nails in them to get a grip. It didn't work.
Heck, I could walk 3 k to work (Score:2)
If I lived within 3 miles of work (Score:2)
Not a replacement for cars (Score:2, Insightful)
The best solution is really robotic cars. We should enact legislation so that all new roads built have some sort of simple radio emitters in them to help guide the robotic cars. Then we can all read slashdot on our wireless neighboor LANs while we ride to work every day.
Re:Not a replacement for cars (Score:2, Interesting)
not entirely true (Score:2)
to conclude (Score:2)
robotic cars, at a minimum, would produce better fuel efficiencies the same way that cruise control does.
try it some time on a long trip. cruise control is better at maintaining constant speeds and gives better gas mileage. humans have a tendency to speed up or slow down without noticing (we're highly distractable) then brake suddenly or accelerate to compensate. we make crappy pilots for mundane/repeatable/non-creative tasks which is where machines excel.
other "environmental" benefits would be reduced loss of life. maybe not environmental in the classical definition... that benefit alone is worth the price of admission. no more drunk driving deaths.
Re:Not a replacement for cars (Score:2)
Re:Not a replacement for cars (Score:2)
Plus how many communities want a huge track like this in there neighborhood? People complain about Cellphone towers being an eye sore now. I think people will complain about the tracks for this device being an eye sore.
Then there are the scams. The only thing a scam artist would have to do is place a false keyboard on top of the regular one and combine it with a small device to read the magnetic strip and then the criminal would have all your card information. More than likely the payment will be done with a credit card to use current info structures.
I don't think this will take off. I think it is a great idea, but I honestly don't think it will take off.
Re:Not a replacement for cars (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not a replacement for cars (Score:3, Interesting)
So do a lot of places, like the Atlanta-Hartsfield Airport (ATL) and Tampa International Airport (TPA) terminal transportation systems. Hell, the entire U-Bahn in Germany is automatically controlled, with the "conductors" or "engineers" or "drivers" or whatever the hell they are only there for safety and in case of emergency.
Unfortunately, this system idea is a bit more complex: The dozens of paths and crossings on each line of the Munich U-Bahn system are still nothing compared with the complexity of a 20-square-block street area, much less the implementation for an entire town or even subdivision.
Nice idea, but reality says, "No dice." People want cars, even when they're expensive to own, operate and maintain. They're convenient (except for parking), can be personalised/customised, and they're private.
woof.
Screw this system --I want the flying cars they promised me when I was a kid!
Smart Cards for billing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from that, it's an interesting idea; you don't necessarily have the hassle of figuring out bus schedules. And you don't have to deal with a cab driver who barely speaks English and is quite willing to drive you around New York for two hours because you don't know that your destination is really only a fifteen-minute drive from the airport. So in that sense, it's nice.
I especially appreciated the photo that shows a bike will easily fit into these vehicles... good call! Heck, that means fitting a Segway in there would be pretty easy...
but what they didn't mention... (Score:5, Funny)
.. is that the people constructing these tracks don't have a large enough supply of "curved" sections of track, and always have plenty of "straight" sections of track. Thus, they keep having to go back to Toys R Us to buy more "curvy" tracks...
feasible? (Score:2, Interesting)
on a side note, doesn't the picture of the ULTra on the elevated track remind you of the Monorail [tvtome.com] epsiode of the simpsons?
Re:feasible? (Score:2)
Right.
And of course NewYork is so much younger ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Err Cardiff has been there quite a bit longer than either NewYork or LA. Of course it can be done if the city wants it to be done.
The Underground in London probably got a similar response when they first built it. Then they built one in Paris and the rest is history.
Cardiff isn't a new town, which is why it has problems, it was started a long long time before cars and hence it needs new solutions as its not been built for cars ala NewYork and LA.
Self Driving Cars (Score:3, Insightful)
I still think that the best way to tackle this would be a solution that relies as little as possible on things built into the ground. It's 2002, and we have fast computers and fairly accurate GPS guidance. I don't see any reason why the earth part of the system should be more than stipes of whatever color reflective paint on the ground. It's easy and cheap, and it won't ever need upgrading. Then car computer guides itself with the paint lines, but uses GPS to ditermine it's location and to make decisions about turning and stuff. Maybe some kind of WAP based thing where cars close to each other share location and velocity information. Of course, this all comes in a box under the hood with a couple cables sticking out. The WAP could accept software upgrades, and if new hardware is neccessary than you just have to take all the cars to the shop rather than dig in half your roads.
Re:Self Driving Cars (Score:2)
I don't see any reason why the earth part of the system should be more than stipes of whatever color reflective paint on the ground. It's easy and cheap, and it won't ever need upgrading. Then car computer guides itself with the paint lines, but uses GPS to ditermine it's location and to make decisions about turning and stuff.
Sounds like someone who has never lived in an area of the country where stuff on the ground gets covered up by snow, gravel, spills from who knows what. Maintinance on this would be a pain as well. It is already hard enough maintaining the lines that are already on the road...
ah packet based travel (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds familiar... (Score:4, Interesting)
Fail-safing (Score:5, Funny)
Roads (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't Disney have this? (Score:2)
Sounds kind of like the Tomorrowland Transit Authority [go.com] (formerly the WEDWay) at Disney World...
Re:Doesn't Disney have this? (Score:2)
Tailor made for Pittsburgh Pa (Score:4, Interesting)
Instead of installing some corrider-constrained, incredibly expensive Mag-Lev system of dubious value which does nothing to address the nightmare of getting from neighborhood to neighborhood in this tangle of hills, gullies and twisty streets they call a City, they could use existing arterials (supplimented perhaps with a couple of new ones) to *greatly* expand the reach of public transportion and make it practical to ditch the now-mandatory two-car-per-family lifestyle.
Phew, feels good to get that off my chest...
Re:Tailor made for Pittsburgh Pa (Score:2)
Yes, but there are several major problems in implementing something like this in Pittsburgh (in particular) or in other places in general.
First, Pittsburgh is very spread out geographically (and economically), while the places people want to go are generally concentrated. How do you balance the load to guarantee availability of thes small cars in the sparse areas that people are living, and not have an overload at the destinations?
Second, Pittsburgh's culture supports individuality. The current HOV lanes are a joke because nobody uses them! A useful solution to the HOV lane debaucle would be to convert the existing space into a monorail/subway system extending into the North Hills.
Third, the infrastructure cost would be beyond prohibitive. Look at how crappy the current belt system is, with a maze of poorly maintained roads through BFE. If you think that the Mag-Lev train will cost a lot, this track mesh would take much new construction that would cause the local taxpayer base to revolt!
Fourth, if these little electric cars are supposed to provide inner city transportation, can they handle the hills in Pittsburgh? The whole reason the infrastructure in the inner city sucks is because the hills are outrageously steep and the streets are poorly laid out.
Finally, I doubt that it could be economically implemented anywhere on earth, as buses and trains are cheaper because they use economically feasible infrastructures (existing roads and tracks) , and many more specially designed small cars would have to be designed and built from scratch. This system would need near 100% utilization to even come close to being economically feasible.
--Len
what about those of us... (Score:2, Informative)
I am not trolling, but you will probably mod me as such since my opinion doesn't jive with the new tech is good slant of the article.
Yehaa, let the flames begin
RUF = Rapid Urban Flexible (Score:3, Informative)
RUF combines the best of cars with the best of trains
The RUF system is a system where all vehicles can drive in 2 ways (Dual-Mode). They can either use the normal roads or they can "ride" on top of a triangular monorail.
The RUF vehicles can both be cars (ruf) and busses (maxi-ruf). The rail (guideway) is a very slender triangular monorail made from 20 m long modules and carried by masts.
When the vehicles "rides" on top of the monorail, the center of gravity is placed below the top of the rail, so the stability is very high. Derailment is impossible. It is possible to squeeze the top of the rail in order to make an emergency braking. This way it is possible under all circumstances to brake in a very short time. Short safety distances means large capacity.
Energy consumption is very low due to the close coupling of vehicles to form a train. This principle also increases safety, since collisions within the train are eliminated when the vehicles already touch each other.
The rufs are electric vehicles with small batteries. The batteries are partly recharged while the ruf uses the rail.
Ah yes, beautiful tracks everywhere (Score:2)
I've always though the city could use a few more tracks. Seriously though, why do these things have to go to every nook and crany of a city, why cant they just drop you off and let you walk a couple blocks to your destination?
OK, I know we're becoming lazier every day so I have four words for you: George Jetson People Mover. You'll never have to take another step again.
Grocery Shopping a reason not to walk 2 blocks (Score:5, Insightful)
As for it being "out of the question" that such could track systems could be laid down in a major city, don't be absurd (not you, but another poster in this thread). Major cities are exactly where this kind of thing would be most useful. Like Europe, they could be integrated into the existing streetplans a la streetcars. If the traffic implications are too significant (possible during the installation and early use, likely the opposite once such a system were adopted widely) they could be built on an elevated track. Personally, I'd just take lanes away from old-style cars
Of course, entrenched interests such as automobile manufacturers and taxi drivers are likely to raise a stink and do everything they can to slow adoption of such a system, but that sort of thing should be resisted and fought, not pandered to. Alas, in an age where the government spends more time and money trying to preserve the business models of buggie whip manufacturers (c.f RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, SSSCA, Copyright extentions, etc.) rather than promoting the adoption of new technologies and the new capabilities they promise (c.f. universally accessible, virtually cost-free libraries, free sharing of information, etc.) the future we face, at least in the short term, is not an optomistic one at all.
Re:Ah yes, beautiful tracks everywhere (Score:2)
Not new, but maybe this time (Score:2)
Working from memory, one problem they hit was the decision of whether to go for the ultimate taxi-like model, as here, or with some intermediate-sized light rail cars. The problems I recall with the taxi-like model included the problem that they couldn't get them connected to enough points for people to actually use them enough to pay for the service; and nightmare scenarios about someone's grandmother being trapped in an unmanned small car with a deranged killer.
I'm hoping someone else can come up with the title of the book on the French experiment I'm thinking about. It focussed much more on the social problems with making this kind of project happen than on any particular technical difficulties.
zzz online's coverage (Score:2)
Curitibo, Brazil rethinking public trans. (Score:2, Interesting)
Its amazing what can be accomplished when someone actually puts real thought into the system they're developing.
Another good web site on the topic (Score:4, Informative)
Another good web site on the topic is Taxi2000 [taxi2000.com].
Make sure you check out their FAQ [taxi2000.com].
The important topic that's always brought up is infrastructure. The beauty of the PRT design is that the infrastructure costs aren't all that appalling, since all the system needs to run is a narrow elevated track which can be built above existing roadways (so no right of way issues, etc). Yeah, it's more expensive than bus stations, but it's *way* cheaper than tunnels or elevated train track.
Yet another good web site on the topic... (Score:2)
Personally, I hope this stuff takes off. I'm getting tired of putting up with traffic.
Not a new idea, but a step in the right direction (Score:3)
Places like North America that already have a huge transportation infrastructure would find it expensive to implement one of these, good to see that some European countries are testing them out now.
I dont know about some of you, but I hate driving. I'd much rather have an automated transport that could take me where I need to go without having to deal with Metro transit and all the crazies on the bus.
Problem of trust (Score:2)
What happens if before I get to my stop, I disable my car somehow and cause congestion? What about the congestion of people just getting in and out of a car serially vs in parallel like a subway does?
Sounds cool, but somehow doesn't. Unless the stations are as big as parking lots and these cars can pass one another, I'm not too into this idea.
I submitted similer story a month ago (Score:2)
DESPITE WHAT ANYONE SAYS... (Score:3, Funny)
Lyle Lanley:
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?
Ned Flanders: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!
[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: Once again...
All: Monorail!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
[big finish]
Monorail!
Homer: Mono... D'oh!
Looks good on paper but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Public transportaion's bad rap (Score:3, Interesting)
These transport pods look like they'd eliminate most of that problem, as they're small enough one could travel alone or with a small group of one's own choosing.
The dedicated track part could still be a problem. Americans like to go where they want, when they want (doesn't everyone) and with the ready availability of (polluting, road-clogging) cars, I don't see them opting for any track-based transport system in the near future. Americans also take a kind of pride in their vehicles (witness the huge number of heavy, expensive, rollover-prone "off-road" vehicles that have never been off a road). Maybe this kind of thing will work in Cardiff, but to really make an impact on the environment, petroleum industry etc., one needs a system that will work in the U.S. Where the cars are.
Re:Public transportaion's bad rap (Score:2)
Now, before anyone starts flaming this poor guy for being "americanist" (or what ever you call it), please bear in mind that the US actually has around 30% of all the cars in the world. For a country that only has >5% of the worlds population, that's quite a lot.
Re:Public transportaion's bad rap (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe there is a significant amount of research going on in a retrofitting of regular automobiles, where a computer system can keep track of all freeway traffic, and manuever them in the most efficient way in order to not cause clogging on the roads, like anticipating traffic merging from onramps, preventing unnecessary weaving, adjusting for breakdowns or accidents (accidents should be significantly lessened by this system, though), etc.
On the heaviest travelled highways, I see all too often people doing dumb things just for their personal perception of getting home faster, like madly weaving in between lanes, or passing traffic in the auxiliary (onramp/offramp merging) lanes, or semi-trucks gaining a whole 1MPH by passing another truck. Things like these make an already-congested road worse. This is the best shorter-term solution. We ain't going to see very many alternatives in the next 10-20 years, believe me. Instead of kidding ourselves with environmentally-friendly space-age pipe dreams, we need a system that is more affordable and fits in with our lifestyle.
No single mode of transportation is advantageous in every area of the world.
PRT = economic issues, not engineering ones (Score:5, Informative)
This is a concept commonly refered to as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), a subset of Automated People Movers (APM) found at many airports. PRT has been around for a while and has somewhat fringe supporters [cprt.org] (like me). Edward Anderson at the University of Minnesota has generated some of the most credible system designs and incorporated under Taxi2000 [taxi2000.com]. In fact, Raytheon [raytheon.com] developed a full test track of Anderson's concept outside of Boston; Bostonians can visit thier Marlborough, MA facility and see the future, [raytheon.com]!
The reason that PRT remains a fringe concept is related to economic challenges, not engineering ones. Although there are claims to the contrary, the general problem is that - like all public transit - PRT require a very high inital capital outlay. In dense urban areas, right-of-way costs are prohibitive. However, just as with information networks, public transit networks generate positive externalities: the larger the system, the more useful it is to everyone.
Furthermore there is little incentive to invest in expensive public works projects have prevented the testing of a fairly unproven technology. Public agencies would much rather invest in light rail systems that they have seen before than fancy driverless systems. Also, there is no conclusive proof that these decentralized systems can sustain the high corrider passenger/hour throughputs that make public transit so desirable for really dense urban areas.
Hopefully, projects like Cardiff will succeed and PRT will get recognition and legitimacy, but this is a technology that has been kicking around for a while and - as you can probably tell - is not insanely complex. As usual, economics and public policy get in the way of interesting engineering!
Raytheon and reality (Score:2)
- Raytheon in Marlborough Mass. is a closed facility.
- The prototype was considered a failure.
- It was disassembled several years ago.
- The architecture Raytheon was using had long ago been proven inefficient in professionial transportation engineering circles.
- This was to be one of those swords-to-plowshares "Peace Dividend" stories. Instead it was remarkably similar to when Boeing Vertol stopped making helicopters and attempted to build LRVs (ask Boston's MBTA what they're like and about the court settlement.)
Unfortunately this poster is absolutely classic of so many of the alternative transportation folks: Short on details, wrong on facts, and prone to handwaving aside problems - the exact same problems that hamper existing systems. With supporters like this no wonder the field hasn't progressed markedly in 30 years.PRT in action at WVU (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, this morning I was riding the PRT to my CS lab, when I experienced first hand one of the minor glitches in the computer system that controls the PRT.
The computer system is still the original one from the 70's, housed in a warehouse-like building, mainframes with magnetic tape reels and all, running programs written in Fortran by the engineering students that built the thing, with all the processing power of the average digital watch.
Anyways, the PRT car I was in was right in the middle of the long straight stretch, having reached it's top running speed of about 40 miles per hour, when the power went out. The little electric cars are designed so that when the power goes out, the wheels lock up.
So, our PRT car goes from 40 mph to a dead stop in under 1 second. I was immediately reminded of physics class; objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. I was standing up at the time. Fortunately, the outside force acting upon me was the soft and squishy back of the person in front of me. The people sitting in the front had the less pleasant experience of having their faces acted upon at 40 mph by the front plexiglass window.
So, yeah, PRT all the way!
PRT (Score:2)
I wonder, however, whether in urban areas (where most transit trips occur) this makes sense. Where's the cost savings over more traditional services like light rail and buses? If subject to large volumes of people, this would quickly be overwhelmed, while light rail vehicles that can hold 150-200 people wouldn't have that problem.
Tokyo Teleport Town (Score:2)
Here's a good link about Tokyo Teleport Town Transit System [washington.edu] (whew!)
What is a Teleport you ask? [worldteleport.org]
Jetsons, but not (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it interesting that we keep proposing (and implementing) systems that are really quite "space age" whatever that means, but the actual face of the world doesn't seem to change that much. This is such a fascinating idea, and one that I think has quite a bit of merrit. The only problem that I see is that of mixing this and regular traffic. I don't want to be trapped inside one of these little boxes toodling allong at a leisurly 25mph and have some jackass with his suv and cellphone run over me doing 50. I know the solution described in the article runs on a special track, but for a mass transit solution to work and gain wide use in anything but the largest cities, it has to share the infrastructure with regualr vehicles, otherwise it is often prohibitively expensive.
I know that mass transit works, but it works best in very dense population centers, because it is limited to specific routes. What if only one of your destination endpoints is near a mass transit station. Then you either have to walk or drive to the terminal. That works durring summer, or if you live in a warm dry climate, but right now I have to think twice about walking across the parkinglot to get my car it is so cold outside. I guess my point is that mass transportation needs to be nearly door to door or it will not gain wide acceptance.
It is if you live in the city. (Score:2)
And that is exactly why it works well in urban areas, and in fact promotes urban growth and reduces sprawl. In the city people routinely choose to live near the bus or subway because it's much more convenient than driving a car. Even out in the burbs, the recent growth of "transit villages" where you can buy a condo walking distance from the subway is a sign of people's preference to avoid traffic.
On your other point, mixed flow of transit vehicles (of any kind) and autos is bad because it's much SLOWER than a dedicated right-of-way. The idea of taking the cars off the track into normal traffic seems pretty inefficient to me, for that reason. Of course, if you're way out in the sticks, no traffic, but then also no critical mass to support the transit system.
Far out... (Score:2)
ULTra Web Site (Score:5, Informative)
The most interesting (and not really mentioned) factor is that the automatic taxis don't travel on predetermined routes, they navigate their small network of paths to get to your destination.
The real problem: (Score:4, Insightful)
If yer in a taxi they can hit you lots until you clear it up any pay for cleaning.
On a bus, well sort of the same.
Can you imagine getting aboard one of this and smelling a 2 hour old pool of vomit?
Other Links, Other Technologies (Score:3, Informative)
- Innovative Transportation Technologies [washington.edu] - Descriptions of over 40 electric, automated transport technologies, ranging from conceptual to operational. Includes people movers (supported and suspended systems: monorails) and automated freight systems.
- Monomobile: Electric Rail Car [iac.net] - Lightweight electric car that attaches to suspended monorail for long trips and can run independently of the rail for local trips.
- RUF: Rapid Urban Flexible [www.ruf.dk] - Hybrid car/monorail: you drive it on and off roads and monorail tracks as needed.
The last one is one I remember in the newsin the past year. of course, being Danish, it might not get promotion in the British press.Sounds familiar (Score:2)
Trolley tracks used to run on existing streets and provided rail links in congested areas of cities & even intra-city travel.
Why rail is better than roads (Score:3, Interesting)
A finite resource will always be completely consumed so long as there are no limitations on the consumption of that resource. A resource in short supply becomes expensive, while a resource in good supply becomes cheap, and a resource in oversupply is still snapped up by anyone who thinks they can use it.
This is true of transportation as well. No matter how much road you build, someone will always find a way to use it. The only limiting factor is that people don't like to travel for more than an hour. When highways are built suburbia springs up around them. When the Long Island Railroad was built, the areas around the stations w/in an hour's travel quickly became heavily developed. Building roads does not make travel easier - it just enables more of it. Thus the most important factor in a transportation system is not how much it can carry, but how well it performs at peak capacity. Railroads, and presumably PRT, may become crowded the traffic continues to flow. But auto roads perform miserably above a certain traffic level - some sort of breakdown always occurs and brings huge chunks of the system to a standstill.
The first key to making PRT a reality is to make it effective enough and cheap enough to allow near door-to-door travel as fast or faster than cars. If people have to take a car to get to the PRT station, they will figure that they might as well drive all the way to their destination. The second key is to make the system strong and flexible enough to allow changes in how it is used (like cargo transport, and automatic delivery).
Personal Rapid Transit (Score:2)
CPRT [cprt.org] is an organization dedicated to promoting these kinds of transportation systems, and Taxi2000 [taxi2000.com] is one commercial system being developed. The washington.edu [washington.edu] evaluate many different systems.
Note that it is essential for these kinds of systems that cabs are small--if they hold many people, they either need to stop a lot (=longer travel times), or they waste a lot of space and resources.
Vandalism? (Score:3, Informative)
Won't the maintainance cost be huge on these things?
replacement for the car?? (Score:2)
A true replacement for the car?? It is still a car.. you just have less choice of where you want to go because once you leave your house, you can only ride on the tracks and only go where the tracks lead.. this doesn't seem like a good thing imho..
Best info on PRT (Score:2, Informative)
Gosh lord, not again... (Score:2)
The technology used automobile-sized cars that could follow each-other at a less-than braking distance whenever they had to run on the same track.
Needless to say, the complexity of implementing the required movable block technology proved too much for the researchers, and the whole idea was scrapped.
One more thing (Score:3, Funny)
Why not a .... tram? (Score:3, Insightful)
All of these have a disadvantage, but it is a system that exists now in most European cities. Even some UK cities are reintroducing the tram now.
However what really makes it work in Europe is the integrated transport policy which links the different types of public transport together.
What is discussed here is a blue sky project for te distant future. It may be created in some new purpose-built 'city' like Milton Keynes, but otherwise creating that network of lines would be a nightmare.
Just using a mixture of conventional public transport technologies can reduce road loading by an incredible degree. Having a policy of integration means that I can use different types as a simple way of getting from A to B.
Here in Germany, I can hit the web site of the transport system [www.rmv.de] (it is also in English so have a look) and it can give me the right mixture of trains/trams/metro/buses to get between A and B throughout the region.
This isn't rocket science, but perhaps if we could drag the UK's tansport system to the level of other major European countries, then we can start to look at more radical technologies.
Liability (Score:2)
Sweet (Score:3, Interesting)
Now that's something I could buy into. Public transport is great and all, but the problem has always been (at least in the US) that once you get to your stop, there's still quite a ways to go. Also, Americans in general just plain and simple don't want to give up the mobility of having a car.
Personally, I live near Atlanta, GA. We have the MARTA trains to move you through the city. The only problem is, the city is huge, and MARTA has maybe a couple of dozen stops thorughout the city, and it doesn't even span out to where I live. The result is if I were to take the MARTA anywhere, I'd still end up travelling 2-5 miles, sometimes more, to my final destination. That's just plain useless.
Being able to drive your car onto a public transportation grid that would take control and send you whisking off to whatever exit you chose would be great. I don't know how it would handle tremendous volumes, but if they can get the process down pat I would be one of it's biggest supporters.
Dual mode is better (Score:3, Interesting)
It also solves the problem of the stations not being nearby - just drive your car to the on ramp, sit back and enjoy the ride. Until the exit comes and you have to wake up, of course.
Is 30 years old ultramodern? (Score:4, Informative)
This is called Personal Rapid Transit, and the first PRT system in use was a "demonstration project" in Morgantown, West Virginia, funded by the U.S. Dept of Transportation. (Morgantown is the home of West Virginia University, and the system linked the WVU campus and downtown Morgantown.) It was built in the early 1970s, but I believe it is no longer operating. Subsequent to the development of the Morgantown project a similar system was developed at the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport. All of the "ultramodern" features described for the system in Cardiff were used there: variable destinations, multiple route paths, standby cars to "flex" demand, etc.
The submitter of this article makes a slight mistake in his summary: PRT, including the Cardiff system, does not envision users being able to take vehicles off the tracks. There have been rail- and rubber tire-based PRT systems proposed, but even the rubber tire-based systems are designed for a dedicated, exclusive right of way. (Several mass transit systems, notably Toronto's, use rubber tires instead of rail.)
PRT suffers from a relatively simple problem: massive capital costs. I believe what finally killed the Morgantown project was a moment of clarity at the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA, the U.S. D.O.T. agency that oversaw the project). A consultant pointed out that while the PRT system had been fun, it would have been substantially cheaper to simply buy every student and staff member of WVU a new car every two years. (My stepfather was the smart-aleck consultant.)
The Cardiff project? Three words: Big Government Boondoggle. The fundamental problem of PRT is the fundamental problem of Light Rail and Monorails too: they are dedicated right-of-way solutions that run along an extremely expensive path. (Even if the cost of construction is trivial, the cost of land acquisition is enormous. If the cost of land acquisition is NOT enormous then there isn't sufficient population density to support a fixed right-of-way system.) It is dramatically cheaper to buy buses. It is dramatically more efficient to run buses. Buses can change routes instantly--so buses that "prowl" the city center Monday through Friday can run on suburban loop routes among shopping malls on Saturday and Sunday. And a bus-based transit system only requires a marginal additional cost for right-of-way (bus stop marking, signs, shelters, etc.).
But buses don't have the sex appeal of big transit projects, so people still throw money at thirty-year-old concepts and call them "ultramodern technology."
How 'bout if we haul out the big networking technology of the time, and proclaim ARCNET as "ultramodern" networking?
Is it an issue of scale? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) How was the cost of building the roads factored in? Not fair to compare the cost of a new railbed to just stuffing more traffic into existing roads... I'm not sure about this, but it would seem like a mile of dual-track railbed built only heavy enough for car-like vehicles should cost less than a mile of four-lane road, and (with central control) would handle more traffic.
2) I'd think the cars for one of these systems would actually be a little simpler than an automobile built for independent operation. Electric motor instead of that horribly complex gasoline engine and transmission. Simpler suspension, because you can count on the rails meeting certain standards for smoothness, and no steering. Lots of electronics, but that's cheap nowadays. So if the cars were built in sufficient quantity, they'd cost the same or less as autos.
Of course, the trouble is that autos are built by the millions, but trams are custom-built. Could you design the trams to use an existing car body, just drop an electric motor under the hood, leave out the steering, and change the wheels?
We had the possibility... (Score:3, Informative)
That is system picked. Want to see what we could have had, for far less money, had our government had more vision, and taken a chance on a proven inventor?
The SkyTran System [skytran.net]
This is a system invented by Douglas J. Malewicki, an independent inventor [canosoarus.com].
Read about SkyTran. I am sure there are a few drawbacks, but I would say the majority of them have been seen to by Mr. Malewicki. His reasoning is sound, and fully documented.
Unfortunately I won't get to see my tax dollars go toward this system...
The French Tried This In The 70's (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cardif? (Score:2)
"The Iris Rover"
"I want to be a part of it, Ne Yor Ne Yor"
I could keep these going all day, but I think it's best I stop now.
Grab.
Re:Brits and trains..... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Here's a thought: These cars would be centrally controlled, meaning they could be electric or hybrid vehicles which steer themselves, instead of monster SUVs or badly tuned '72 Datsuns driven by psychopaths and invalids.
Or in other words,
"Why are most AMERICANS so hung up on their cars?"
Re:Brits and trains..... (Score:2)
Mass transit near Detroit doesn't make much sense, because instead of trying to cram the most people in the smallest amount of area, we're spread out over a very large area of land.
Granted alot of this is because of the auto industry, but the idea of mass transit is just foreign to us. Granted we do have some Taxis, busses, and a very limited monorail system in Downtown (which almost no one uses). It's a pain to use any of them. You have to go way out of your way, and it takes alot more time to call a Taxi to pick you up (good luck finding one in the street), or go to a bus stop (not many of those at all anyways) or you can just drive from your house to where you need to get.
Plus, because our main source of income is the automobile industry, we're more supportive of everyone having an individual car, because that means our family members are gainfully employed and is good for our economy.
Let me illustrate something..... (Score:2)
That's a population density of 241 people per square Kilometer.
source [cia.gov]
The Continious 48 states have an area of 7.7 million square Kilometers, and a population of around 285 Million. That's 37 people per square kilometer, on average.
About 1/6 the density of the UK.
So that means in any given area in the United Kingdom, there are 6 times as many people there to use public transportation, making investing in public transportation far more economical, and also making it economical to run efficient, timely connections to just about any place one would want to go.
In the United States, because we are so spread out, for most of the US, there are not enough close points of interest to make it feasible to build usable public transportation. Where the population density is high in the United States, such as New York, Boston, Los angeles, or a number of other Cities, you have an advanced system of public transportation that would rival anything in Europe.
But outside of that, there just aren't enough people in the right places to make a good system.
That is why we are so hung up on our cars. Because we, for the most part, can not build a public transportation system that will get us where we want to be, when we want to be there. The economics just aren't there. I'm sure in most of the UK, you can get anywhere you want by PT within 15- 20 minutes of when you want to be there. Here, except in cities, if there is public transportation, it will get us to our destination within 40 to 120 minutes of when we want to be there.
Would you find that acceptable?
Re:Let me illustrate something..... (Score:3, Interesting)
But how big does a city need to be to have an effective transportation system? Sure, Chicago and New York are (apparently) excellent. So is the Bay Area. LA's system isn't that great, though--certainly not for an urban area of its size and population. I lived in San Diego for two years, and their transit system would be an embarassment for a city 1/3 the size! Boulder, the 'pride and joy of alternate transportation,' has a decent system. Not great, but decent.
Note that all of these comparisons are based on the opinion of a Canadian--not of a European.
I think that the biggest reason public transit won't work in the US is that people don't _want_ it to work (and don't want to put money into it, and...); and the biggest reason that people don't want it to work is that they're put off by the current, dysfunctional systems.
Re:Here's why I like my car... (Score:2)
Where I'm living now (Calgary, AB) transit is quite good. If you work downtown, you'll most likely take the train in, with 65% of the core working population. That's some effective use of public transport! Unfortunately, not many cities are this good.
Re:Here's why I like my car... (Score:2)
That's just too much wasted time with various possibilities of making my day not run smoothly. If I could just take the commuter train all the way to my work site, I'd be happy, I could just sleep the entire way. That's why I joined a vanpool. It cut an hour each way from my commute, I go pretty much directly from home to work, and I save money.
I will never ever regularly drive myself in my own car to work, though. I believe in mass/para transit systems, especially when there is more than one option... as long as they're kept clean too (some of those cars on BART are just nasty!).
Re:Brits and trains..... (Score:3, Informative)
So think in terms of computer files. If you can't improve your network connection, you compress your files to make the most of the bandwidth. That's the idea the rest of the world uses, getting more ppl onto buses, trams and trains to transport as many ppl as possible per unit of road space.
But even the US has this problem - think Manhattan in the rush hour. In spite of the number of roads, there's still terrible traffic problems. Trouble is, the US places a stigma on public transport - using a bus is an admission that you can't afford a car, and that's some kind of venal sin in the States. Cars for Americans aren't penis substitutes, they're more a way of demonstrating your wages and status. You might as well paint a big sign on that SUV saying "I earn more than $60,000 - suck my dick you cheapass losers". Until this attitude changes, the US will (1) continue to get worse traffic problems, (2) get worse pollution, (3) continue to use more energy per person than any four other countries, and (4) have to bend over and take it up the ass any time the Arabs decide the Yankee Infidels are getting too big for their boots.
Grab.
Re:Brits and trains..... (Score:2)
If Tony Blair wasn't such a toadying arsehole he might actually hear the people telling him that public transport should be run as a public service!
Re:What about the interior? (Score:2)
IF the cars are all public then you'd have to deal with it... but if people could own their own unit and just use the public rail system you'd be able to look after your own stuff.
Of course you'd have to be able to self-drive the thing or you'd never be able to park it at the mall =)
Re:Sorry (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing beats having what I want, when I want, for how much I want it! Seriously, thats the kind of selfish approach that inhibits the adoption of technologies that would make the world better for people less fortunate than you; nevermind the evironment, noise pollution
With western technology and population desities being what they are, people have the ability to isolate themselves via technology. Cars are an excellent example. Think of how many people, in your city, go from one 4 block arena to the exact same 4 block area somewhere else. Think of how efficient it would be to co-ordinate and co-operate with them! But alas, you're already spoiled
Re:Sorry (Score:2)
Hehee, I know you have a right to your opinion. I was stating my opinion about your opinion.
And from my experience, I prefer the car.
You missed the whole point. I prefer the car too. In fact, I prefer to have sex with whomever I want, but I recognize that it is for the Greater Good of my society not to attempt to cater to that preference. That's all I was pointing out
Re:Congestion still a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
You have the relatively cheap option of doing it in 3D. No intersection, no problem. Not sure about parking, but I guess that you just have sidings big enough for one car every twenty metres (in busy areas). You get out, it leaves to pick someone else up. Routing will be a very interesting programming problem.
Also, now we're talking about tracks. What happens when one jumps the tracks? It just sit there hold up everything else behind it?
Presumably. That'd be the same as trains and cars...
How are we going to accomodate for all these tracks in existing cities? It's grossly expensive and takes up space.
Hmm. Tear up some of the roads and stop subsidising drivers would be my knee-jerk response. Alternatively, since you won't need to accommodate any forty tonne trucks, just build them all as flyovers to existing roads. It is expensive, true, but so is purchasing new land for more roads, maintaining roads, and dealing with the adverse affects of motor vehicle over-use.
James
Answers (Score:2)
Chauffeurs - Modified Real Doll technology becomes Real Chauffeur. You simply carry one with you, and place it in the "front" to simulate a driver. It also serves to show how important you are to all around you outside the vehicle as YOU are carrying your own Chauffeur!
Re:Wealthy People (Score:2)
Re:Wealthy People (Score:2)
Britain is much less class-oriented than Americans think. Certainly I've noticed more class-consciousness in the States than I've ever seen in Britain - the difference is that the States thinks it's class-free. In one sense of that phrase, it's mostly right...
Grab.
Lost Packet (Score:3, Funny)
SD
Nice FUD. (Score:2)