Slog
News & ArtsMonday, December 29, 2008
City ULTra Seattle?
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 2:14 PM
You know, if it weren't for the really atrocious soundtrack, I could watch this YouTube video over and over and over again. It's about an electric transit system called ULTra that's opening in Heathrow in 2009 (not 2008 as the video says:)
The more I think about it, the more I believe that Seattle needs a multitude of public transit options instead of just one major system, and this ULTra would be perfect for particularly dense areas, if it actually runs as smoothly as ULTra themselves are predicting. For right now, for me, it's enough to repeatedly watch the video on mute and dream.
(Via Futurismic.)
1
Pods are a fucking joke, and you don't have any idea what the fuck you are talking about/
Go back to writing about books, dumbass.
Go back to writing about books, dumbass.
3
Pods are ridiculous. They don't work, which is why you've never seen them anywhere but airports.
It's a really stupid idea. It makes for a great video, but so do space ships. We should get a millenium falcon public transit system! There's no traffic in the air!
It's a really stupid idea. It makes for a great video, but so do space ships. We should get a millenium falcon public transit system! There's no traffic in the air!
4
Shut up! Pods rule! They should be encased in tubes though. Tubes full of pods are the future and everyone knows it.
5
We HAVE a multiplicity of transit options. That's why our transit system sucks so hard. Bus, trolley, streetcar, waterfront streetcar that's just a specially-painted bus now (WHO rides that fucking thing, anyways?), monorail, Sounder, and soon to be Sound Transit, plus of course (of course) Amtrak.
That's EIGHT systems. The only two that connect together in a sensible way are the bus and trolley networks (which are the same for all practical purposes unless there's an inch of snow).
The goal should be to pick ONE of these, or realistically two (bus and rail), and pound the hell out of them. But even our broadest-coverage system, the bus, misses out on most of the city, and only works for bedrooms-to-downtown and back. What we DON'T need is to reinvent the wheel once again.
Heathrow doesn't resemble anything about Seattle, and I can assure you that even if it did there are ZERO aspects of the Heathrow experience that anyone would want to emulate anywhere else.
That's EIGHT systems. The only two that connect together in a sensible way are the bus and trolley networks (which are the same for all practical purposes unless there's an inch of snow).
The goal should be to pick ONE of these, or realistically two (bus and rail), and pound the hell out of them. But even our broadest-coverage system, the bus, misses out on most of the city, and only works for bedrooms-to-downtown and back. What we DON'T need is to reinvent the wheel once again.
Heathrow doesn't resemble anything about Seattle, and I can assure you that even if it did there are ZERO aspects of the Heathrow experience that anyone would want to emulate anywhere else.
6
Is this for real? This was part of Walt Disney's pipe-dream, actual-domed-city version of EPCOT (Experimental Prototype City Of Tomorrow), as seen on the "Tomorrowland" DVD (he died right after planning it). Or as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9M3pKsrc…
10
Each pod has it's own battery. To me that seems like the most expensive and inefficient way to distribute power to them. I mean they have to go down for recharge and batteries are heavy and batteries wear out and for fuck sake it's on a track so you know where the cars are going to be and can run power lines out to them.
I do like pods, though, even if they are stupid.
I do like pods, though, even if they are stupid.
11
Oh, they parodied the pod transit in The Incredibles, too. A pod transit system is almost as much a supervillian hallmark as a white cat and a giant laser.
12
The reality of these kinds of airport systems (San Francisco Intl has a version with larger cars) doesn't match the hype. Think about what problem is being solved: To get mainly passengers from spot to spot over the several hundred acres of a large airport. What do passengers carry in abundance? Luggage. How must he luggage get from the terminal main levels to the transit lines above: Carry, drag, heft, hustle everything along with the family. Reverse the process upon reaching the (hopefully right) destination: Unload, heft luggage back down to the terminal level.
Sadly they are the only option. My own choice would be a super fast moving walkway systems within terminals combined with escalators. Those work pretty well. Someone needs to design them with disappearing seats.
Sadly they are the only option. My own choice would be a super fast moving walkway systems within terminals combined with escalators. Those work pretty well. Someone needs to design them with disappearing seats.
13
Pods are a waste of time.
Even one of my high school friends who drove through Seattle on the way back to B.C. thinks so, and she lives in Dubai where they're building an extensive monorail system.
Seriously.
Now, when you guys get serious and start demanding the County starts spending 40 percent of the Transit money in Seattle from our 40 percent of taxes for our 40 percent of the population - instead of the 20 percent we get now - then, I'll listen to your fantasies about pods.
Even one of my high school friends who drove through Seattle on the way back to B.C. thinks so, and she lives in Dubai where they're building an extensive monorail system.
Seriously.
Now, when you guys get serious and start demanding the County starts spending 40 percent of the Transit money in Seattle from our 40 percent of taxes for our 40 percent of the population - instead of the 20 percent we get now - then, I'll listen to your fantasies about pods.
14
Oh think of it! This way when I am headed home drunk in my own private pod, I am free to urinate and maybe vomit without a bunch of assholes on the bus staring at me... Mind your business bus riders!
15
Mayor Dickels wouldn't want it because it's too close to being a monorail system. Wouldn't want to upset any of his builder buddies downtown y'know.
17
The economics of this would never work at the scale of a city. Light rail and subways work in the long run because they are mass transit. They can carry enough people to be worth the large capital expenditure of building dedicated tracks, stations, maintenance yards, etc. Plus the fact that they can carry a lot of people drives denser development around them, magnifying the long-term return on the initial investment in infrastructure.
Pods and other forms of Personal Rapid Transit are the opposite of mass transit in terms of capacity. They'll never be able to carry as many people as a real rail system, but they have all the same dedicated infrastructure at only a slightly smaller initial cost. And since they have less capacity, they don't draw the same kind of dense development and never realize the other urban-planning goals of mass transit.
Operational cost will also be much higher with these, since it will always be cheaper to maintain one large vehicle that carries 250 people vs. 65 small vehicles that carry 4 each. That's true even if you take into account the cost of a driver for a light rail train. (the monorail we were denied would have beat both handily since they were large and automated).
PRT is only attractive to a few people:
1. Those who want to use something futuristic and unachievable as a tool to argue against building real transit now.
2. Dreamy transit nerds with no grounding in reality
3. People who want to try and make transit work with suburban development patterns such as those shown in the video on this story (nothing will every be able to do that economically)
4. People who want transit from their front door to their office without having to rub shoulders with the commoners.
More...
Pods and other forms of Personal Rapid Transit are the opposite of mass transit in terms of capacity. They'll never be able to carry as many people as a real rail system, but they have all the same dedicated infrastructure at only a slightly smaller initial cost. And since they have less capacity, they don't draw the same kind of dense development and never realize the other urban-planning goals of mass transit.
Operational cost will also be much higher with these, since it will always be cheaper to maintain one large vehicle that carries 250 people vs. 65 small vehicles that carry 4 each. That's true even if you take into account the cost of a driver for a light rail train. (the monorail we were denied would have beat both handily since they were large and automated).
PRT is only attractive to a few people:
1. Those who want to use something futuristic and unachievable as a tool to argue against building real transit now.
2. Dreamy transit nerds with no grounding in reality
3. People who want to try and make transit work with suburban development patterns such as those shown in the video on this story (nothing will every be able to do that economically)
4. People who want transit from their front door to their office without having to rub shoulders with the commoners.
19
These things have a top speed of 25mph, and would cost as much as light rail to carry a hundredth of the number of people.
We have a little tram to connect terminals at our airport, too. There's a reason these things aren't used for transit.
We have a little tram to connect terminals at our airport, too. There's a reason these things aren't used for transit.
20
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) in theory could be the best of all transit systems. The ULTra is only a starter system and doesn't prove the capability to navigate a grid of guideways that are placed 1/2 mile apart throughout.
The idea that you could walk at most a little over a 1/4 mile and get a car that would take you to no more than 1/4 mile away from your destination though not a car would be appealing.
And why would transit be the one area that we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. Why should we be stuck with 19th and 20th Century technology.
Getting to the stations is no more of an issue then getting to subway stations or ground level roads with above ground airport gates. The stations would have elevators and stairs.
As for messing up the cars, your ID can be easily traced through your easypass and on-site video. Sure some small percentage will mess up cars but once it is clear arrest will follow...
All that said I'm skeptical until a real grid system is built and tested. I'm glad that after 50 years of dreaming a real PRT system is getting closer.
the capacities are not that small and the costs, if not burdened with uber safety requirements, could be way less than light rail or monorail. Since they run only when used not empty like buses and trains energy could be very efficient.
But the proof is in the eating of the pudding - we'll see - and we should keep working on better ways
The idea that you could walk at most a little over a 1/4 mile and get a car that would take you to no more than 1/4 mile away from your destination though not a car would be appealing.
And why would transit be the one area that we shouldn't reinvent the wheel. Why should we be stuck with 19th and 20th Century technology.
Getting to the stations is no more of an issue then getting to subway stations or ground level roads with above ground airport gates. The stations would have elevators and stairs.
As for messing up the cars, your ID can be easily traced through your easypass and on-site video. Sure some small percentage will mess up cars but once it is clear arrest will follow...
All that said I'm skeptical until a real grid system is built and tested. I'm glad that after 50 years of dreaming a real PRT system is getting closer.
the capacities are not that small and the costs, if not burdened with uber safety requirements, could be way less than light rail or monorail. Since they run only when used not empty like buses and trains energy could be very efficient.
But the proof is in the eating of the pudding - we'll see - and we should keep working on better ways
22
Ben,
The average cost per KM is estimated at $10M tops. That's about $15M per mile - double that and it's still only 1/10 the cost of light rail here.
The average speed of light rail here is about 20 mph except for the non-stop section between Seattle and the airpor even slower through the RV.
If, and that's a big if, a grid system were to work - direct station to station would provide very fast real commute (door-to-door) - unless one lives very close to a light rail station the time for commuting will not be fast at all.
And Nappy, you at the bottom of the ocean, a good start.
The average cost per KM is estimated at $10M tops. That's about $15M per mile - double that and it's still only 1/10 the cost of light rail here.
The average speed of light rail here is about 20 mph except for the non-stop section between Seattle and the airpor even slower through the RV.
If, and that's a big if, a grid system were to work - direct station to station would provide very fast real commute (door-to-door) - unless one lives very close to a light rail station the time for commuting will not be fast at all.
And Nappy, you at the bottom of the ocean, a good start.
23
#20 - i'm pretty sure you can't back up your claims of significantly lower costs, especially if you're putting them in a grid every 1/2 mile.
- You've still got the cost of stations with "elevators and stairs". If you say they're smaller, then you're only saving money by reducing system capacity.
- You'll probably say that without "uber safety requirements" the cars can be light as a feather and thus save money on the elevated structure. Sound Transit's light rail vehicles weigh 525 lbs. per passenger. Think you'll really be able to make the PRT cars beat that by a sizeable margin? probably not.
- Cheaper vehicles? Not likely to be a big difference. Light rail vehicles cost Sound Transit about $20k per passenger. A pod with its own power system and automated control system won't be cheap. Especially when you consider the low production rate.
- You've still got to buy right-of-way for two tracks. They might be a bit less wide than light rail, but not enough to make a big difference.
- How about operating costs? There's no way you can maintain many small vehicles for less cost than a few large ones.
So let's say that maybe it's true that these are magical and you can save 30-40% of construction costs due to less concrete and steel. The overall capacity of the system will make the cost-per-passenger-mile much higher with PRT vs. real mass transit.
- You've still got the cost of stations with "elevators and stairs". If you say they're smaller, then you're only saving money by reducing system capacity.
- You'll probably say that without "uber safety requirements" the cars can be light as a feather and thus save money on the elevated structure. Sound Transit's light rail vehicles weigh 525 lbs. per passenger. Think you'll really be able to make the PRT cars beat that by a sizeable margin? probably not.
- Cheaper vehicles? Not likely to be a big difference. Light rail vehicles cost Sound Transit about $20k per passenger. A pod with its own power system and automated control system won't be cheap. Especially when you consider the low production rate.
- You've still got to buy right-of-way for two tracks. They might be a bit less wide than light rail, but not enough to make a big difference.
- How about operating costs? There's no way you can maintain many small vehicles for less cost than a few large ones.
So let's say that maybe it's true that these are magical and you can save 30-40% of construction costs due to less concrete and steel. The overall capacity of the system will make the cost-per-passenger-mile much higher with PRT vs. real mass transit.
24
@19, I forgot that one -- make that NINE systems we have. Now, add in Tacoma's light rail line and their bus network, and Snohomish's bus network....
25
Dumb. Let's just get an elevated rail if we're going that route, something that will handle rush hour.
Also, The Incredibles is a bad source of ideas for rapid transit, given it's Libertarian subtext.
Also, The Incredibles is a bad source of ideas for rapid transit, given it's Libertarian subtext.
26
Half of the PRT cult will claim ULTra isn't "real" PRT. The other half will herald ULTra as the "dawning of a new era" in public transport.
The exact same 50-50 split and ensuing nerd-fight occurs when Morgantown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgantown_… is debated. Morgantown was Richard Nixon's vision of futuristic transit. Back in 1973. The system was never expanded.
One reason light rail is so late-in-coming here has to do with Boeing's involvement with the Morgantown project. Some of those same washed-up engineers have been very active in the long-term political fight against rail transit in the Seattle area. Those engineers also happen to be affiliated with Kemper "15 minutes are up" Freeman. They also tend to push hard for freeway expansion, and solo driving.
That's the old guard wing of the PRT cult. The hyper-nerds-with-attitude new turks lean green and left, and spend most of their waking hours on the Microsoft Campus. They like bikes, too. These theoreticians actually believe a transport system can mimic electric current on an integrated circuit / microchip.
We already have ULTra vehicles all over the place in Seattle. Just visit your local golf course, and see the magic wonder of small-wheeled electric vehicles yourself.
The exact same 50-50 split and ensuing nerd-fight occurs when Morgantown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgantown_… is debated. Morgantown was Richard Nixon's vision of futuristic transit. Back in 1973. The system was never expanded.
One reason light rail is so late-in-coming here has to do with Boeing's involvement with the Morgantown project. Some of those same washed-up engineers have been very active in the long-term political fight against rail transit in the Seattle area. Those engineers also happen to be affiliated with Kemper "15 minutes are up" Freeman. They also tend to push hard for freeway expansion, and solo driving.
That's the old guard wing of the PRT cult. The hyper-nerds-with-attitude new turks lean green and left, and spend most of their waking hours on the Microsoft Campus. They like bikes, too. These theoreticians actually believe a transport system can mimic electric current on an integrated circuit / microchip.
We already have ULTra vehicles all over the place in Seattle. Just visit your local golf course, and see the magic wonder of small-wheeled electric vehicles yourself.
27
The debate over PRT is an endless loop waste of time.
PRT is a low capacity people mover technology, limited to airports, campuses, theme parks and other places where transit demand is small, and trips are very short.
PRT could provide decent, local feeder service to a high capacity rail line in this area, for instance - just so long as large-scale special events aren't involved (such as concerts and sporting events).
The problem with the PRTista Jihad is pretty basic. They want to make their low capacity, limited application technology COMPETE with real transit systems, depending on the pixie-dust dream that PRT will replace those systems as the future unfolds. All in the name of "re-inventing the wheel" (for re-inventing the wheel's sake).
PRT is a low capacity people mover technology, limited to airports, campuses, theme parks and other places where transit demand is small, and trips are very short.
PRT could provide decent, local feeder service to a high capacity rail line in this area, for instance - just so long as large-scale special events aren't involved (such as concerts and sporting events).
The problem with the PRTista Jihad is pretty basic. They want to make their low capacity, limited application technology COMPETE with real transit systems, depending on the pixie-dust dream that PRT will replace those systems as the future unfolds. All in the name of "re-inventing the wheel" (for re-inventing the wheel's sake).
28
Scott,
As I said we'll see about costs - of course a built out system would be expensive but it would replace the bus system because it would bring stations to within 1/4 mile of everyone.
The right of way would be way cheap because they would go over the streets. In lower density areas there would only be one track because the system can bring people to stations in one direction. I think it would take about 320 miles to cover Seattle on 1/2 mile grid. At $15 million per mile that would be $5B and provide 320 stations.
When light rail is built out to 2025 funding we will have spent $15B at least and have about 36 stations.
Anyway (for you Fnarf, Anyways) any pro transit person should welcome the efforts in London.
And we'll see what the per mile per actual passenger (not capacity) cots are? We'll see what it takes to maintain the cars. We'll see how much they weigh maybe not so much because they won't be built for collisions like cars and light rail. Did you know that heavy rail cars are lighter than light rail cars?
And MarkJ you are a complete idiot. Morgantown has nothing to do with transit in Seattle.
ULtra clearly is not what PRT needs to be to work.
They don't think about it as on a circuit board but rather as packets on the Internet which is quite troubling since they collide -
No one here is saying that Seattle should drop everything and build PRT but if London does it and it shows promise that's a good thing.
As I said we'll see about costs - of course a built out system would be expensive but it would replace the bus system because it would bring stations to within 1/4 mile of everyone.
The right of way would be way cheap because they would go over the streets. In lower density areas there would only be one track because the system can bring people to stations in one direction. I think it would take about 320 miles to cover Seattle on 1/2 mile grid. At $15 million per mile that would be $5B and provide 320 stations.
When light rail is built out to 2025 funding we will have spent $15B at least and have about 36 stations.
Anyway (for you Fnarf, Anyways) any pro transit person should welcome the efforts in London.
And we'll see what the per mile per actual passenger (not capacity) cots are? We'll see what it takes to maintain the cars. We'll see how much they weigh maybe not so much because they won't be built for collisions like cars and light rail. Did you know that heavy rail cars are lighter than light rail cars?
And MarkJ you are a complete idiot. Morgantown has nothing to do with transit in Seattle.
ULtra clearly is not what PRT needs to be to work.
They don't think about it as on a circuit board but rather as packets on the Internet which is quite troubling since they collide -
No one here is saying that Seattle should drop everything and build PRT but if London does it and it shows promise that's a good thing.
29
Sorry McG, you didn't back up any of your cost claims. You only made them more outlandish.
Saying that PRT is $10 million per mile doesn't make it so.
Elevated light rail is about $175 million per mile for the segments that Sound Transit is building. The monorail project came out to be $150 million per mile, with much smaller stations and thus smaller capacity. Where are the specific cost savings in construction for PRT that would reduce the cost of labor, concrete, steel, and systems by more than an order of magnitude less than light rail and monorail?
There's also the fact that you intend to have many more stations than light rail, which means even more cost for land, materials, and labor.
$10 million per mile is crazy. There's no way you can substantiate it.
Saying that PRT is $10 million per mile doesn't make it so.
Elevated light rail is about $175 million per mile for the segments that Sound Transit is building. The monorail project came out to be $150 million per mile, with much smaller stations and thus smaller capacity. Where are the specific cost savings in construction for PRT that would reduce the cost of labor, concrete, steel, and systems by more than an order of magnitude less than light rail and monorail?
There's also the fact that you intend to have many more stations than light rail, which means even more cost for land, materials, and labor.
$10 million per mile is crazy. There's no way you can substantiate it.
30
BTW I said $15M per mile but hey anything for a fight, right?
How much does it cost for 1km of ULTra?
The total cost of an ULTra system - vehicle, infrastructure and control system - works out between £3million and £5million per km of guideway.
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/prt/faq/
Oh and Scott since the initial Link was about $180 million per mile where did you get the $175 per mile for elevated? The tunnel was already there and they used ROW through the RV.
How much does it cost for 1km of ULTra?
The total cost of an ULTra system - vehicle, infrastructure and control system - works out between £3million and £5million per km of guideway.
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/prt/faq/
Oh and Scott since the initial Link was about $180 million per mile where did you get the $175 per mile for elevated? The tunnel was already there and they used ROW through the RV.
32
I see. The pod manufacturer's FAQ says it's "between £3million and £5million per km of guideway", so that must be true for your 325 mile citywide grid, right?
Oh, but wait, they also say that elevated guideway "is about 3 times" the cost of at-grade construction. Seems pretty precise.
And does any of it take into account the cost of your many elevated stations? Probably not.
And there's still no details about how this low-capacity system would be an order of magnitude less expensive than elevated light rail or monorail in terms of concrete, steel, and labor.
Somehow I'm not thinking that phony numbers on a company's website is worth getting all transit-nerd dreamy about. Maybe we should just work to build some more of that "19th century technology" that will actually move large numbers of people around the region.
Oh, but wait, they also say that elevated guideway "is about 3 times" the cost of at-grade construction. Seems pretty precise.
And does any of it take into account the cost of your many elevated stations? Probably not.
And there's still no details about how this low-capacity system would be an order of magnitude less expensive than elevated light rail or monorail in terms of concrete, steel, and labor.
Somehow I'm not thinking that phony numbers on a company's website is worth getting all transit-nerd dreamy about. Maybe we should just work to build some more of that "19th century technology" that will actually move large numbers of people around the region.
33
I'll vote for them if they can guarantee that there won't be a free ride zone for them. Oh once the Hobos get a hold of them you'll never get the stink out.
34
Ugh... Another Stranger author who has no basic understanding of the subject that they are writing about. Paul is a rather repeat offender, I might add.
This idea is called PRT, and it is bunk. It tried to combine the efficiency of mass transit with the flexibility of automobiles. Which is a great idea until you start looking at how it would be implemented and the actual efficiency numbers in the real world.
Plenty of opposing info to be found with some basic Googling:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans…
http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRTisaJoke.h…
Proponents of PRT have beautiful computer animations, and that's it. They're worse than Mac fanatics when it comes to blind devotion to something.
This idea is called PRT, and it is bunk. It tried to combine the efficiency of mass transit with the flexibility of automobiles. Which is a great idea until you start looking at how it would be implemented and the actual efficiency numbers in the real world.
Plenty of opposing info to be found with some basic Googling:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans…
http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRTisaJoke.h…
Proponents of PRT have beautiful computer animations, and that's it. They're worse than Mac fanatics when it comes to blind devotion to something.
35
@ 21
"Think of them as the City's high-tech toilets on tracks."
And so will a lot of the chavs in London. They're advertising this already in Heathrow airport. If this goes anything like the opening of terminal 5, which was a complete disaster, it should be entertaining to watch.
A couple of predictions:
1. one car will fail and block the system trapping people for hours missing their flights
2. someone will get mugged and/or rapped in one of these
3. they will stink of piss in approximately 3 months
"Think of them as the City's high-tech toilets on tracks."
And so will a lot of the chavs in London. They're advertising this already in Heathrow airport. If this goes anything like the opening of terminal 5, which was a complete disaster, it should be entertaining to watch.
A couple of predictions:
1. one car will fail and block the system trapping people for hours missing their flights
2. someone will get mugged and/or rapped in one of these
3. they will stink of piss in approximately 3 months
36
Oh Nappy hope you read those briefs more closely.
I'm not a PRT supporter but if Heathrow builds a system that works and adds a new mode to the mix that is a good thing. It can't hurt.
Scott is such a typical ST toady - light rail good everything else bad - buses bad but we need them because trains only cover tiny part of area.
Take a look at the ST map and figure what percentage of people are within 1/4 or 1/2 of a station.
http://st2.soundtransit.org/st2map/
And Scott I took their top number and just like ST I don't believe it until I see it. That's why I kept saying we'll see - get it. And the capacity IF IT WORKED would be fine on a grid - they, those awful PRTers, believe that we shouldn't have concentrations that are an outcome and necessary for rail to work at all.
I'm not a PRT supporter but if Heathrow builds a system that works and adds a new mode to the mix that is a good thing. It can't hurt.
Scott is such a typical ST toady - light rail good everything else bad - buses bad but we need them because trains only cover tiny part of area.
Take a look at the ST map and figure what percentage of people are within 1/4 or 1/2 of a station.
http://st2.soundtransit.org/st2map/
And Scott I took their top number and just like ST I don't believe it until I see it. That's why I kept saying we'll see - get it. And the capacity IF IT WORKED would be fine on a grid - they, those awful PRTers, believe that we shouldn't have concentrations that are an outcome and necessary for rail to work at all.
38
SeaTac looked at PRT maybe 15 years ago.
It is an idea worthy of consideration, but the answer is going to be in making the existing auto infrastructure look more like PRT, not making transit look more like personal autos.
Basically what's going to happen is intelligent vehicle systems. Dedicated right of way, like a bus way will have advantages, including safety. The decision on how many of these to build are a simple matter of safety economics and post rollout feedback.
It is quite possible that we could have sections of road look exactly like this video within 50 years.
But the crucial thing now is to start moving in that direction on our roads - such as through a two lane HOT setup where one of the lanes is reserved for so-equipped vehicles, starting with busses and trucks.
It is an idea worthy of consideration, but the answer is going to be in making the existing auto infrastructure look more like PRT, not making transit look more like personal autos.
Basically what's going to happen is intelligent vehicle systems. Dedicated right of way, like a bus way will have advantages, including safety. The decision on how many of these to build are a simple matter of safety economics and post rollout feedback.
It is quite possible that we could have sections of road look exactly like this video within 50 years.
But the crucial thing now is to start moving in that direction on our roads - such as through a two lane HOT setup where one of the lanes is reserved for so-equipped vehicles, starting with busses and trucks.
39
"And MarkJ you are a complete idiot. Morgantown has nothing to do with transit in Seattle. ULtra clearly is not what PRT needs to be to work."
Thank you for making my point, McG.
PRT isn't PRT unless it's one particular goofball's version of PRT. In other words, the concept can't even stand on its two feet. In practise, things get even messier.
Thank you for making my point, McG.
PRT isn't PRT unless it's one particular goofball's version of PRT. In other words, the concept can't even stand on its two feet. In practise, things get even messier.
40
"And MarkJ you are a complete idiot. Morgantown has nothing to do with transit in Seattle."
McG, aren't you writing in from New Hampshire? Can you tell me what New Hampshire has to do with transit in Seattle?
McG, aren't you writing in from New Hampshire? Can you tell me what New Hampshire has to do with transit in Seattle?
41
Markie, I'm not a PRT supporter but I know the theory and it involves a grid. Heathrow will prove a little but not much.
LRT fans argue whether the least expensive systems that use old ROW are the best or subway systems like Seattle that go to existing density. They even argue about what model train is the coolest. Heavy rail, light rail, metro rail commuter rail...blah blah blah.
Tooley has a point that the future of transportation probably will be electric cars that have guideway capability.
LRT fans argue whether the least expensive systems that use old ROW are the best or subway systems like Seattle that go to existing density. They even argue about what model train is the coolest. Heavy rail, light rail, metro rail commuter rail...blah blah blah.
Tooley has a point that the future of transportation probably will be electric cars that have guideway capability.
42
"Tooley has a point that the future of transportation probably will be electric cars that have guideway capability."
Yeah, right. Futurists have been pitching that one since what, the '40's?
Yeah, right. Futurists have been pitching that one since what, the '40's?
43
Paul,
Glad you found ULTra's excellent animation. This first system is actually sparking quite a bit of interest in more enlightened jurisdictions around the world, and you can expect to start seeing systems get built in the United States soon, too. The first two true "podcar" or Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems are scheduled to open this year, not only the one at London's Heathrow Airpiort, but also in the carbon-neutral, zero-waste city under construction in the United Arab Emirates that'll be powered entirely by renewable energy: Masdar.
The Masdar solution ( http://www.thenational.ae/article/200811… ) is to build a local transit network so good that it'll actually be faster than private cars within an urban area, that passengers seldom have to wait for and that connects within easy walking distance of every point in the city and to a rail network connecting with neighboring cities (Abu Dhabi) and the regional airport. In Masdar, cars will be banned, and all in-city transportation will be accomplished by walking, bicycling, Segways, and Personal Rapid Transit, which will be necessary for longer trips (Masdar occupies about 2.5 square miles) as well as for trips made by the elderly or infirm. The result will be a truly sustainable city, where private automobiles are no longer necessary and would in fact be inferior to the public transit network for urban transportation.
The London system at Heathrow Airport ( http://www.atsltd.co.uk/media/pictures/h… ) will serve a similar purpose as it rolls out from next year's opening, beginning with a simple connector between a remote parking lot and that airport's grand new Terminal 5, and as the success of that system is demonstrated, eventually connecting points throughout that airport with rail lines, remote parking, and nearby hotels, reducing congestion, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and travel times.
Perhaps the best feature of these Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems, and contrary to many of the uninformed comments made earlier here, is that they cost much less to build and operate than conventional large-vehicle transit, while still carrying quite a large number of passengers. They cost less to build because the guideways can be so much lighter than large-vehicle systems ( http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/pr… ), which also makes them less intrusive, and they cost so much less to operate because they are driverless. Each track is also one-way and grade-separated, thus eliminating the possibility for most collisions either between vehicles in the system or with other transportation modes like pedestrians, bicyclists, or cars.
And, of course, they integrate extremely well with existing and planned rail lines, with little or no waiting for a vehicle that'll bring you to those rail stations, as well as being among the greenest and most energy-efficient transportation modes ever conceived:
http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html
We voted for Personal Rapid Transit here in the Puget Sound region, back in 1996 when we approved Sound Move ( http://www.soundtransit.org/x2218.xml ). That vote committed Sound Transit to help fund and build a demonstration PRT system, which still hasn't been addressed. I look forward to a time in the near future when PRT will become part of our local transportation network, just as is already becoming the case in Sweden, England, and in Masdar, and is being planned in several other U.S. states as well as many other nations:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation/…
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/studies/fil…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/nyregi…
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm…
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom…
http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q0…
http://www.am1090seattle.com/topic/play_…
http://www.bonnersprings.com/news/2008/j…
http://www.gettherefast.org/documents/tw…
The Puget Sound region can be a leader in green transportation or it can be a follower, but with the uncertainty of future energy sources as well as the increasing problem of greenhouse gas emissions, and with the true leaders in both of these areas already adopting Personal Rapid Transit in their future transportation planning, it's only a matter of time before we do the same here, too.
John C. Todd, Jr.
SoundPRT
www.GetThereFast.org
More...
Glad you found ULTra's excellent animation. This first system is actually sparking quite a bit of interest in more enlightened jurisdictions around the world, and you can expect to start seeing systems get built in the United States soon, too. The first two true "podcar" or Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems are scheduled to open this year, not only the one at London's Heathrow Airpiort, but also in the carbon-neutral, zero-waste city under construction in the United Arab Emirates that'll be powered entirely by renewable energy: Masdar.
The Masdar solution ( http://www.thenational.ae/article/200811… ) is to build a local transit network so good that it'll actually be faster than private cars within an urban area, that passengers seldom have to wait for and that connects within easy walking distance of every point in the city and to a rail network connecting with neighboring cities (Abu Dhabi) and the regional airport. In Masdar, cars will be banned, and all in-city transportation will be accomplished by walking, bicycling, Segways, and Personal Rapid Transit, which will be necessary for longer trips (Masdar occupies about 2.5 square miles) as well as for trips made by the elderly or infirm. The result will be a truly sustainable city, where private automobiles are no longer necessary and would in fact be inferior to the public transit network for urban transportation.
The London system at Heathrow Airport ( http://www.atsltd.co.uk/media/pictures/h… ) will serve a similar purpose as it rolls out from next year's opening, beginning with a simple connector between a remote parking lot and that airport's grand new Terminal 5, and as the success of that system is demonstrated, eventually connecting points throughout that airport with rail lines, remote parking, and nearby hotels, reducing congestion, energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and travel times.
Perhaps the best feature of these Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems, and contrary to many of the uninformed comments made earlier here, is that they cost much less to build and operate than conventional large-vehicle transit, while still carrying quite a large number of passengers. They cost less to build because the guideways can be so much lighter than large-vehicle systems ( http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/pr… ), which also makes them less intrusive, and they cost so much less to operate because they are driverless. Each track is also one-way and grade-separated, thus eliminating the possibility for most collisions either between vehicles in the system or with other transportation modes like pedestrians, bicyclists, or cars.
And, of course, they integrate extremely well with existing and planned rail lines, with little or no waiting for a vehicle that'll bring you to those rail stations, as well as being among the greenest and most energy-efficient transportation modes ever conceived:
http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html
We voted for Personal Rapid Transit here in the Puget Sound region, back in 1996 when we approved Sound Move ( http://www.soundtransit.org/x2218.xml ). That vote committed Sound Transit to help fund and build a demonstration PRT system, which still hasn't been addressed. I look forward to a time in the near future when PRT will become part of our local transportation network, just as is already becoming the case in Sweden, England, and in Masdar, and is being planned in several other U.S. states as well as many other nations:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation/…
http://www.drpt.virginia.gov/studies/fil…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/nyregi…
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm…
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom…
http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q0…
http://www.am1090seattle.com/topic/play_…
http://www.bonnersprings.com/news/2008/j…
http://www.gettherefast.org/documents/tw…
The Puget Sound region can be a leader in green transportation or it can be a follower, but with the uncertainty of future energy sources as well as the increasing problem of greenhouse gas emissions, and with the true leaders in both of these areas already adopting Personal Rapid Transit in their future transportation planning, it's only a matter of time before we do the same here, too.
John C. Todd, Jr.
SoundPRT
www.GetThereFast.org
44
Ben Schiendelman, how many times do I have to debunk you before you realize that what you say is bunk? I last dissected your spiel on a skyscraper board, and by the end of it even the regulars were mocking you.
Ben, I suggest you do some research before spouting more of your rhetoric. Start by reading John C. Todd's links; once you understand the technology and mathematics come back and we'll have a real debate. :-)
Ben, I suggest you do some research before spouting more of your rhetoric. Start by reading John C. Todd's links; once you understand the technology and mathematics come back and we'll have a real debate. :-)
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS