Will you commute via 'personal rapid transit?'

[Vox]

I ran across this article and I really like the concept. Thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/31/bua...ansit/#expand1

[DetroitPlanner]

One exists not too far from here in Morgantown WV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgant..._Rapid_Transit

Never been there but its on my list.

[Detroitnerd]

No, I would not commute via PRT because it is a boondoggle too expensive to ever be built here. People must stop trying to wed the automotive mode to the mass transit mode. People must stop these preoccupations with transit systems that have never been practically applied [[PRT), are space-age modes that haven't been tried yet in the US [[maglev), and concentrate on the BEGINNING BUILDING BLOCKS OF TRANSIT. But no, this will become a thread with hundreds of replies defending a technology that no one has been able to practically use.

[LodgeDodger]

That would be fun!

However, what Detroit needs to do is ramp up their bus system. They could save a boat load of money instead of wasting money on a light rail system.

[Detroitnerd]

That would be fun!

However, what Detroit needs to do is ramp up their bus system. They could save a boat load of money instead of wasting money on a light rail system.

What? Why you little ... !

[Vox]

That would be fun!

However, what Detroit needs to do is ramp up their bus system. They could save a boat load of money instead of wasting money on a light rail system.

True, that. 3.4 miles at $450 - $500 million dollars, versus the minimal costs in relation of BRT. The PRT is even less expensive than the light rail.

[Detroitnerd]

This is already waaaay too idiotic a discussion. Proceed.

[Detroitnerd]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_yLodI1CQ

[professorscott]

Ah, this fantasy again. Let me correct with some facts:

1. There is no such thing as PRT except on paper. Morgantown's system is just about like the People Mover, it doesn't matter what someone chooses to call it, it's not PRT.

2. Nobody has any idea what PRT would cost since it hasn't ever been built anywhere.

3. Nobody has any idea whether PRT would work since it hasn't ever been built anywhere.

This discussion comes up on DY about every 2 years or so. Enjoy the fantasizing.

[Vox]

Ah, this fantasy again. Let me correct with some facts:

1. There is no such thing as PRT except on paper. Morgantown's system is just about like the People Mover, it doesn't matter what someone chooses to call it, it's not PRT.

2. Nobody has any idea what PRT would cost since it hasn't ever been built anywhere.

3. Nobody has any idea whether PRT would work since it hasn't ever been built anywhere.

This discussion comes up on DY about every 2 years or so. Enjoy the fantasizing.

Actually, I am. I also enjoy the fantasy that light rail will save Detroit, but I don't let that stop you guys from believing that, either.

[Detroitnerd]

Actually, I am. I also enjoy the fantasy that light rail will save Detroit, but I don't let that stop you guys from believing that, either.

That's nice. Instead of defending an indefensible, untried, illogical mode of transit, why not mischaracterize the arguments of those you disagree with. Pfffftt...

[Detroitnerd]

They have a name for these kinds of schemes, solutions in search of a problem: gadgetbahnen

http://www.planetizen.com/node/70

[Detroitnerd]

PRT as a way to monkeywrench traditional transit planning.

http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRT-Cult.html

[Detroitnerd]

Personal Rapid Transit [[PRT) is claimed by its promoters [[J. Edward Anderson, President of Taxi 2000 Corporation, and Jerry Schneider of the University of Washington, among others) to combine the advantages of rapid transit and private cars. Actually, this is an imaginary system based on an operationally and economically infeasible concept [[elaborate infrastructure, yet low capacity) and has no realistic potential for application in urban transportation.

-- Vucan R. Vuchic, "Transportation for Livable Cities", Rutgers: Center for Urban Policy Research [[1999), pp. 220-221

[Detroitnerd]

Dear Andrea,

I'm glad you liked my presentation. Thanks for coming. I only have the one book on transportation issues. My other book is just a general collection of cartoons.

As for PRT, I know it well. Alas, I find it to be totally evil. In theory, it combines the worst features of cars [[low capacity) with the worst features of transit, high-tech, capital-intensive infrastructure. It's basically a "Smart Car" on a monorail [[but lacks the safety devices found in even a typical car). There are hundreds of problems with it [[both theoretically and in reality) but the biggest problem is IT SIMPLY CANNOT BE BUILT [[...other than meaningless little test tracks and airport people-movers, which are basically "Trains"). The technological problems are simply too overwhelming. Think of Bay Area Rapid Transit [[BART)-- a computerized transit system in the San Francisco Bay Area that's been around for over 30 years [[and has been periodically upgraded). At any given moment, BART only has to manage 54 trains on a simple 5-line system. These trains have tons of built in redundancies. They have multiple cars with multiple motors [[in case one or more motors fail). They have manual overrides for train doors and car controls in the event of computer or mechanical malfunction or in the event of emergency ...AND they are built to withstand crashes even at high speeds, in tunnels and elevated tracks with emergency access walkways. Originally, they were supposed to be driverless, but [[despite numerous retrofits) the error rate was high enough [[given their heavy use) that they eventually had to put in redundant operators to make sure doors didn't close on people ...or to override train controls when the computer system failed. Since they only need 54 operators [[at most) ...and each train holds over 1000 people, this wasn't a big deal or an overwhelming expense. Finally, BART operates on fixed routes on a fixed, very predictable schedule. Even with all these features, redundancies and just 54 trains [[at any given moment) ...BART only operates on-time, without failure at 89%!!! [[and they've had 30 years to work out the kinks!!!)

Now, imagine a PRT system with 10,000 little pods, which have NO built in redundancies, each traveling in an unpredictable path on random schedules, on a maze of overhead tracks, which [[as currently designed) have no safety or capacity redundancies. If a single car [[of 10,000) had it's single motor break down or some sort of on-board computer failure ...and [[as sure as death and taxes) computers DO fail from time to time ...the car would stall, shutting down part or all of the system while someone with heavy equipment went out to get the pod [[and it's stranded passengers) off the track. What would be the failure rate? Extrapolating from other computer operated transit systems that only operate 50-100 trains at a time, the failure rate of a 10,000 pod system [[on fewer over-all miles of track) would be 80% or 90% or god knows!?! They couldn't keep the thing running for 5 minutes before multiple failures would shut it down. IT IS SIMPLY TOO COMPLEX of an engineering and computer engineering problem to solve. Shooting down a single incoming nuclear missile with space based lasers is a far EASIER engineering problem than PRT ...and, despite hundreds of billions of dollars and 25 years of research, the Defense Department has been unable to solve even THIS problem with less than a 50% failure rate.

The bottom line is a fully functioning PRT system CANNOT BE BUILT. It is a crack dream of engineers at U of Minnesota and MIT. Ed Anderson or Dean Zimmerman will say they have an answer for every one of your objections ...but, when you add them all up and carefully reason out and cost up their "Answers," ...they don't add up! Think for one minute-- If PRT could be built and would be cost effective, dozens of major engineering firms would have put money into building it-- like Siemens, Rockwell, Bechtel, etc. But, when these companies looked at PRT, they see the above problems that I described and the astronomical costs involved and they refuse to invest more than token amounts [[in simple "People-mover", airport shuttle systems or other vastly abbreviated, fixed-route, train-like systems). In over 30 years, an ACTUAL PRT system has been unable to attract a single major, corporate private investor. In 30 years, no ACTUAL PRT system has ever been built ...and it never will be built. Trolleys, Buses and subways by contrast were all developed and paid for by the private sector. Twin Cities Rapid Transit [[which ran 530 miles of trolleys in the twin cities) was a private company. So, even if you don't believe what I'm saying, I think it's important to ask why PRT has been unable to attract major private investment.
Meanwhile, people like Tom DeLay [[now indicted for conspiracy) ...who HATES transit ...or Mark Olson [[a transit hating, road builder in Minnesota) and the highway lobby that they serve view PRT as a way to stifle funding for actual, viable bus and light-rail transit. They support PRT precisely because they know it won't work and because it serves as a wedge issue to divide transit advocates and helps prevent real transit systems [[that are proven to be effective) from getting funded or built.

Taxi 2000 is a cultish pyramid scheme, where Ed Anderson, in his charismatic obsession with PRT has managed to hoodwink hundreds of well meaning individuals into investing a minimum of $5000 each based on scant engineering information, made-up balance sheets and financial data. He's hooked a former chancellor of the University of Minnesota, a well meaning but clueless peace and justice studies professor at St. Thomas University, a random clueless financial planner in Saint Paul ....right up to some people in city and state government. Witness the recent lawsuit, where some of these investors realized they'd been had and tried to recoup some of their losses. It's the Minneapolis equivalent of the "Falun-Gong" cult in China ...only it's trying to milk Minnesota taxpayers for millions of dollars that would be better spent on extended bus service, new LRT lines or even after school programs in Minneapolis's underfunded public schools [[which have been severely cut).

...So, for all these reasons [[and more), I will not allow my cartoons or images to be associated with PRT in ANY WAY! ...and would consider suing for copyright infringement if I found out they were being used by PRT advocates.

I mean you no offense and admire your interest and activism on transportation problems ...but that is my feeling on the issue.

Sincerely,
Andy Singer


more at http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRTcritics.html

[Vox]

So why should I believe a cut and paste articlle from someone who I never heard of? Especially on a website called roadkillbill. Awful professional...

Here's an actual study of the issues for and against PRT

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/r...eedings_wb.pdf

The key to all of this is the probability that something like this would need no public subsidy. Which is the whole problem with any proposed system here.

[Detroitnerd]

So why should I believe a cut and paste articlle from someone who I never heard of? Especially on a website called roadkillbill. Awful professional...

Go ahead. Attack the messenger and not the message. That's, um, professional...

Here's an actual study of the issues for and against PRT

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/transit/r...eedings_wb.pdf

The key to all of this is the probability that something like this would need no public subsidy. Which is the whole problem with any proposed system here.

So why does the PDF you posted raise the point that PRT backers are seeking public subsidies? For that matter, why has a private company never funded a PRT initiative EVER?

Inside the PDF, which you may not have read, it includes remarks from Rep. Hornstein:

Calling himself a “PRT skeptic,” Rep. Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis said he is concerned PRT has been under discussion since the 1970s, but most plans have been shelved. Meanwhile, there are other transit systems that work, he said. “I concur with Barb that we have to focus our very limited investment and very limited political capital on systems that work,” he said. “Like the HOURCAR, like streetcars.” Hornstein said he has been frustrated by some PRT advocates in the past who have opposed more government investment in transit and in public transportation in general — the very sources PRT advocates are looking for now to fund their projects.

So, um, what was that about PRT systems needing no public subsidy?

[ghettopalmetto]

The key to all of this is the probability that something like this would need no public subsidy. Which is the whole problem with any proposed system here.

You figure out that probability within a 95% confidence interval, and report back to us.

In the meantime, we already have PRT--it's called "cars".

[Vox]

Cherry picking?

From the PDF:

Light rail takes $10 million a year of public subsidy. The bus system, 25 percent paid for by users, and let’s not even go into the automobile, the most heavily subsidized transportation system. PRT is the only system mentioned that will pay for itself in terms of operating cost.

Or:

4. Cost and Financing Issues• Need to differentiate PRT operating costs, which are likely not to require public subsidy, from capital costs for a PRT demonstration project, which may need public-private funding.

[Vox]

You figure out that probability within a 95% confidence interval, and report back to us.

In the meantime, we already have PRT--it's called "cars".

Yeah, I know. I also know that 4 dollar gas is coming fast. And the state doesn't have money for subsidizing the train to nowhere, either.

[Detroitnerd]

Cherry picking?

Fantasize much? How can you say that a PRT system will pay for itself when A GENUINE PRT SYSTEM HAS NEVER BEEN BUILT AND UTILIZED?

[ghettopalmetto]

Fantasize much? How can you say that a PRT system will pay for itself when A GENUINE PRT SYSTEM HAS NEVER BEEN BUILT AND UTILIZED?

Because he's making a Wild Ass Guess, that's how he can say that.

Did you know that monorails and maglevs pay for themselves too?

[Vox]

Fantasize much? How can you say that a PRT system will pay for itself when A GENUINE PRT SYSTEM HAS NEVER BEEN BUILT AND UTILIZED?

So? A light rail system that pays for itself hasn't been built either. Tell me when that happens too.

[Vox]

Because he's making a Wild Ass Guess, that's how he can say that.

Did you know that monorails and maglevs pay for themselves too?

Sure they do? I can't wait until the People Mover becomes a huge monument to that. This year.

[Detroitnerd]

So? A light rail system that pays for itself hasn't been built either. Tell me when that happens too.

You are living in fantasyland.

First, you say that PRT will pay for itself. This is preposterous. You have a system that has low volume and will need extremely sophisticated infrastructure. There is no way, theoretically, that you can have such a system that will pay for itself.

Second, no genuine PRT system has been built anywhere ever. So you have no proof to back up your argument there.

Third, every time they try building a PRT system, they go to local governments to ask for money. So that's just proof of more fantasizing on your part.

Finally, ALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS COST MONEY. It's just that systems such as light rail are the very systems that Detroit grew up around. So when we talk about light rail, it is a serious investment with proven gains that works in other cities -- and has worked here before. That is why light rail is credible, and why such untried, never-implemented systems as PRT are a joke.