tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post7057561009459448355..comments2024-03-09T04:13:55.185-06:00Comments on Open PRT specification project: 89> On the Road Again...Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-65419112817848605692010-06-28T13:57:05.001-05:002010-06-28T13:57:05.001-05:00Dan the Blogger Responds -
This thread has played...Dan the Blogger Responds - <br />This thread has played out. It's gotten long enough that it's kind of hard to wade through, though the ideas are important enough to pursue further. I'd like to weigh in with some ideas of my own but I think I'll make a post of it, referencing back to your comments. That way the subject will get the attention it deserves and maybe we'll get some new blood into the mix.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-76855549640907548482010-06-24T10:12:47.599-05:002010-06-24T10:12:47.599-05:00This is another good point. I was trying to examin...This is another good point. I was trying to examine the area around Heathrow (thank you google maps/streetview!) and it seems like trying to extend the ULTra network there might be a bit of a tough slog, given that the area seems fairly low density despite the number of tube stations in the area.<br /><br />And now that it seems Masdar as a PRT city is dead on the table, Heathrow is the only nascent system we have left.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-79526236514582313372010-06-23T23:10:54.842-05:002010-06-23T23:10:54.842-05:00Looking at all those niche areas is great but does...Looking at all those niche areas is great but doesn't need to be exclusive at all. I think you write off the city project a little too easily too.<br /><br />First off, taking the last 50 years and counting them against PRT is quite an overstatement. The first 20 years the technology didn't really exist. Around the 70's there was a short window of opportunity, but it evaporated fairly quickly and was replaced by a climate very hostile to not just PRT but all forms of transit other than cars (and that included walking and biking!).<br /><br />The climate is becoming more favorable for PRT (though less for the current crop of humans, plants and animals). There also isn't much chance of this evaporating any time soon, the basic underlying problems aren't going away.<br /><br />Even if a project isn't won, a look at how PRT would fit into an environment like that is very valuable so I'm not going to stop thinking and plotting along those lines.<br /><br />I know from my experience with change efforts in the software world it helps to have a long term and a short term plan, and usually it's the long term plan you start on first and finish last.<br /><br />So the ideal for me is to find a number of places where a full system would make a lot of sense then start looking inside those areas for really great short term opportunities.<br /><br />In Chicago here, we often remember Burnham, "Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will not themselves be realized."<br /><br />With a great plan it is possible to get things done you could not have done otherwise. Cities are not going to bet their whole system until they see something proven, but they will make it possible to take much larger risks than you might do entirely alone, and thus have the opportunity to reach a critical point at which the network effects are greater than any one shopping center or airport might accomplish.<br /><br />The ULTra project isn't a bad example of this. You are all talking about the Heathrow system but there is a backstory and a larger plan outside of Heathrow alone.Ryan Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358323841471401980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-46594988352736496312010-06-23T16:25:30.130-05:002010-06-23T16:25:30.130-05:00Also, what I gathered from that paper is that the ...Also, what I gathered from that paper is that the best transit mode to try to compete with is the bus. Buses don't have as much of a constituency as rail since they are relatively light on infrastructure. So, you're left with bus-makers and bus-operators. Most bus-makers are specialists and do not also make other transit equipment. More importantly, many transit manufacturers have little stake in the bus paradigm, except where they rely on buses to feed into the networks that they provide, whether that's heavy rail transit (ie. subway) or LRT.<br /><br />To the extent that PRT feeders improve the use and utility of these rail networks, they could make these rail systems more attractive and speed their deployment, and it will increase the upfront capital cost of such a line while taking business away from their bus-making competitors.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-59506941674856900342010-06-23T14:40:32.427-05:002010-06-23T14:40:32.427-05:00I agree with you to the extent that transit author...I agree with you to the extent that transit authorities and existing transit manufacturers cannot be counted on to get the ball rolling. It needs to be an outside actor, at least until the ball is rolling, when the incumbents will start snapping up the most promising PRT firms or developing their own systems.<br /><br />So, I could see this working where a PRT firm can go to a city, or an organization with some desire for better transportation but no vested interest in the industry, and offer to finance a system. I know PRT firms are not generally interested in operating their systems, but it might be necessary to get the ball rolling.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-66845633686062557352010-06-23T11:34:07.354-05:002010-06-23T11:34:07.354-05:00I do get talking. In this case, I forgot to menti...I do get talking. In this case, I forgot to mention a point Koren made in his essay that seems especially relevant to your comment: That in a situation like PRT's, offering lower operating expenses and self-sufficiency can actually be a point AGAINST your proposal!<br /><br />I won't go into the argument here. Read it yourself. But it's painfully valid, in both economic and political terms.<br /><br />You have to be careful what you're selling...qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-1604433732273117162010-06-23T11:29:35.406-05:002010-06-23T11:29:35.406-05:00Andrew:
You'll notice I said "even the He...Andrew:<br />You'll notice I said "even the Heathrow system." I'm impressed with the mere existence of the system, and I hope it does a job of proving the concept. I'm all the more optimistic because one of the people behind that system is the fellow who pointed out the problems I've described earlier. Nathan Koren seems to know what he's up against.<br /><br />My main concern is that the ULTra implementation at Heathrow might not be enough of a network to properly highlight the advantages that have to be highlighted. Mr. Koren seems to think it has a chance of doing so, and I hope he's right. We'll see.<br /><br />In the meantime, it seems that everyone else (except possibly JPods) is still trying to get entire cities to (from their point of view) dump all their existing infrastructure and blow off their established relationships in the transportation industry, to bet a large part of their budgets that an untested system will work over a whole city the way it does in computer sims and on ten-meter test tracks. And that it will <i>someday</i> demonstrate capabilities that the present systems don't have.<br /><br />I know that's not what you're saying. But that's apparently what they're hearing. If it weren't, somebody would have taken the chance already.<br /><br />Mr. Koren and his associates are hoping that airport parking-lot integration is going to demonstrate the good stuff about PRT in a way that others will want to emulate. And he seems to have a more reasonable idea of what might work than most of us seem to. As I said, I do hope he's right.<br /><br />And that maybe the rest of us should be looking at what they're doing and why.qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-59021459030196998532010-06-23T10:26:53.391-05:002010-06-23T10:26:53.391-05:00qt: You're missing in your caveat that ULTra i...qt: You're missing in your caveat that ULTra is a lot cheaper to operate than a shuttle service. And this is important. If a PRT implementation can plausibly be self-funding, it removes a lot of the hesitation. I could also see a PRT firm building out a small network in a 20 year lease back arrangement in exchange for the fare revenue and cooperation in getting the system built. If the PRT maker can convince itself and its backers of the business case, they can assume the financial risk as a proof of concept.<br /><br />I'm curious as to the details of BAA's ownership stake in ULTra. BAA has deep pockets and an interest in the success of the system not only in their application, but elsewhere.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-55975668718262927462010-06-23T09:31:49.983-05:002010-06-23T09:31:49.983-05:00Transparency and scalability. Two of the biggest ...Transparency and scalability. Two of the biggest advantages PRT has. And yet most of the proposals I've seen don't really demonstrate either, in their early stages. Even the Heathrow system doesn't really do anything a good tram system couldn't.* And the Masdar system strikes me as a cute gimmick, in a city that is itself basically a cute gimmick.<br /><br />Morgantown has been around for decades, and hasn't sold anybody on the idea. I have a nasty suspicion that everyone <i>except</i> PRT advocates sees Morgantown as a nifty but overpriced LRT and doesn't really get what the fuss is about. What does it do that a few shuttle vans couldn't? they ask themselves...<br /><br />A real PRT demonstrator, to my mind, would show how small-scale the convenience would reach. Stops at a quarter-mile spacing or less, where there was a good excuse for them. <i>Saturation</i> of the area the system covered. Along with just enough range to make it clear the system could be easily scaled up.<br /><br />UP. LRT and heavy rail already have the citywide scale covered, however badly. Hit where they ain't.<br /><br />Show that going to the corner store for a pizza is actually <i>easier</i> in a podcar than it would be to get the family dreadnought out of the garage, back it down the driveway, make sure you don't run over the little girl in the scooter as you make the first turn, cruise slowly through the parking lot looking for a space less than a quarter-mile from the front door, etc., etc., etc.<br /><br />Sell the strengths.<br /><br />To me, that means a small demonstrator, with no attempt to sell the big system first. Thirty to fifty years of bitter experience has shown that the big system doesn't sell. Not yet. So don't try.<br /><br />Find someone who'll build your demonstrator because it would be handy for THEM. A college or corporate campus. A theme park. A group of smaller campuses, or shopping districts, or attractions or what-have-you, that could benefit from being linked into a single unit, sharing students or customers or tourists.<br /><br />Then you can go the the bigger people and say "What would it be worth to you if we could make your LRT (or downtown business district, or whatever) as easy to get to as stepping into an elevator?"<br /><br /><i>(Part 2 of 2)</i><br /><br />Like I said. I don't know that this would work either. But it might. And it might lead more or less directly to the kind of systems you're looking at. I hope so. I live in a city, too.<br />-----<br />*It does it more quickly and more comfortably. It might be more convenient. It might show up enough of the advantages to get someone's attention--I hope so.qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-5968598123387893322010-06-23T09:31:07.172-05:002010-06-23T09:31:07.172-05:00I have only one problem with "the idea of sel...I have only one problem with "the idea of selling someone on the possibilities of a large system and then getting funding for a smaller demonstration from that."<br /><br />PRT advocates have been trying it for decades.<br /><br />And it doesn't seem to work.<br /><br />And when something consistently doesn't work, the thing to do is figure out something else to try.<br /><br />It can help sometimes to make some guesses as to why what we're doing doesn't work. In my case, I've borrowed my guesses from Nathan Koren's essay on PRT activism, recommended by Dan the Blogger and mentioned by me in my first comment on this SubThread from Heck. <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/Koren_PRT_Essay.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here's the link again, in case someone's coming in late.</a> He explains the problems in much greater detail than I ever could in a set of post-comments.<br /><br />As to possible solutions? I don't know, really. All I can do is guess. My guesses so far have been built around the two biggest advantages I see in PRT:<br /><br />1) Transparency<br />Cars took it all away from other forms of transport largely because they were orders of magnitude more convenient. No waiting with a crowd of strangers for a train (or bus, or...) they <i>said</i> would be here in "x" minutes. No hoping that guy in the next seat wasn't really drunk and about to spew. Etc.<br /><br />Modern traffic jams have taken a lot of that inconvenience away. But not enough of it, as the rail, LRT, gondola, and what-have-you advocates have learned over and over. But some. The environmental concerns are bothering other people, such as city planners and government types, but to little avail. The ordinary citizens won't give up that convenience except at gunpoint.<br /><br />But the podcar, in certain environments, can be even more transparent than the car. As I said in a previous post: Get in, sit down, wait 'til it stops, get up, step out. And work on your novel while you're waiting. <i>Star Trek's</i> magic elevator.<br /><br />2) Scalability--in BOTH directions<br />The unique thing (in my mind) about PRT as a form of public transit is that, in a properly laid out system, it keeps the transparency described above on just about any scale. The only reason you'd have to get out of your podcar would be to use some other form of transit that was faster for the long haul in the middle. With the right podcar, you might not even need that.<br /><br />In theory, you could use the exact same procedure to comfortably go a hundred miles that you'd use to go one block. The convenience of an automobile, without the auto's demands on your attention (lest you run into your neighbor), among other things.<br /><br />(cont)qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-17827687062667996582010-06-22T11:14:16.471-05:002010-06-22T11:14:16.471-05:00Well I agree that you need to start small but I fi...Well I agree that you need to start small but I find more promise in the idea of selling someone on the possibilities of a large system and then getting funding for a smaller demonstration from that. I find more obstacles to a system that is in a place not already committed to some form of public transit.<br /><br />The idea isn't to fight LRT, it's simply not to concede all the good spots before we even try. It's not like the absence of an LRT proposal means there's no competition, there's always the existing car infrastructure (well.. almost always only a handful of counterexamples worldwide).<br /><br />It would help a lot to get your proposal in the door before the LRT proposal because it would allow you to get them thinking about the network rather than approaching someone who already has a tunnel vision of a straight corridor.<br /><br />Most of the systems I've seen tend to follow a pattern of oasis's. For example, in Columbus, I don't see there being one long line through campus and downtown. I envision a network going throughout these areas, but then being connected to other networks at the airport, Easton and Polaris.Ryan Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358323841471401980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-48359387099235744512010-06-22T10:07:01.311-05:002010-06-22T10:07:01.311-05:00(part 3, sort of--aagh!)
Andrew: Just for the re...<i>(part 3, sort of--aagh!)</i><br /><br />Andrew: Just for the record, I'm not really a gondola fan--I only ran across the blog/site I've referred to a few weeks ago. I do think he's got a point about cable's advantages compared to light rail.<br /><br />As for the advantages/disadvantages of gondolas or cable cars vs LRT, you'd do better to listen to his arguments on the subject. He has both more time and more interest in the subject than I do. One thing I'll toss off for the moment is that he claims cable-propelled transit is<br /><br />a) more scalable than you think, and<br /><br />b) actually is generating a fair bit if interest and several thriving applications, especially in developing countries where its price advantages can be decisive.<br /><br />But that's for him to argue. If you're interested, check him out yourself. I'll warn you, though, his opinion of PRT will get your back up.<br /><br />My point throughout all of this has been to warn you not to put too much energy into fighting LRT, etc., on their own ground. If the LRT types can make any kind of a case for their system (and they usually can, on a corridor or simple loop), you're at the bottom of a really big hill. You've got a lot of neat ideas and absolutely no track record.<br /><br />In the long run, I suspect both your Kitchener-Waterloo scenario and Ryan's Columbus proposal have a lot going for them. But remember you'd have to sell them in the short run.<br /><br />Maybe that's why I like the small-scale pictures. PRT is at its best when it can <i>saturate</i> an area, and going from <i>anywhere</i> to <i>anywhere</i> is just a matter of stepping in, sitting down, and saying "Home, James." And the magic of it is, PRT can eventually do that for whole cities.<br /><br />But until you've saturated the whole city, it doesn't really look that impressive. And most proposals I've seen don't seem to think that's important.<br /><br />To sell this to the people who will actually shell out the money, you're going to have to impress them. Not "make the balance sheet look a little better," IMPRESS THEM.<br /><br />And it's easier to look for a customer you <i>can</i> impress than to try and impress somebody who isn't listening.<br /><br />Over the past 40 or 50 years, PRT advocates have signally failed to impress much of anyone, even with such an impressive product to represent. I'm just suggesting it might be time to look at another set of sales techniques. Or another set of customers. Or something.qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-53068939915465576242010-06-22T09:38:27.359-05:002010-06-22T09:38:27.359-05:00part 2
By the way, Ryan, I agree that the final it...<i>part 2</i><br />By the way, Ryan, I agree that the final iterations of PRT will likely be in inner cities.* I'm just not sure if it will start there. Cost, inertia, and a lack of overwhelmingly obvious benefits (from the builders'/investors'/etc.'s point of view) make it a really hard sell on that scale.<br /><br />The model I have in my head for PRT is one I mentioned in the first of these too-long posts--the <i>Star Trek</i> turbolift. Step in, say "Shuttle bay," wait for it to stop, and step out. As completely transparent a form of transport as we can manage.<br /><br />The first uses I see for it involve situations where the "last mile" problem and the "first mile" problem are the same. SHORT distances, in other words. Maybe no more than a mile or two. A large college campus, for instance. Too big to conveniently walk across, with no convenient central corridor that'll get you to any classroom building you need to reach. Where getting from the southwest corner to the east-side admin building is <i>exactly</i> as important as getting from the center to the north gate. Where the only thing bicycles will do is cause <i>quiet</i> traffic jams. Where podcars might let students and faculty alike think of the huge campus as one big building that looks a lot like a park.<br /><br />This particular picture has the advantage that a workable system could be built on a fairly small scale, where the learning curve wouldn't bankrupt the builder OR the investors. And if it worked, it could be repeated. And people might talk about it. And two such campuses (or some such) might build a linking line, starting a citywide network.<br /><br />I'm not saying this is a better scenario than some of the ones I've been reading, here or elsewhere. Just that it is another scenario. And that a good way to find a scenario that works is to look at a lot of scenarios.<br /><br />I tend to think of small-scale systems, partly because of the picture in my head, partly because they let you start small and work out the bugs before you show up on the big boys' radar, and partly because they take advantage of one of PRT's more interesting advantages--its huge scalability.<br /><br />The city scenarios you and Andrew have been discussing are intriguing. And they just might work. Do keep looking at that. Just don't get fixated on a particular scenario or scale, that's all I'm saying.<br />-----<br />*(If something like PRT comes out of the suburbs, I suspect it's more likely to be some form of dual-mode--I don't really see a good answer to the "last mile" problem in a low-density community.)qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-20924571039819193342010-06-22T09:17:13.433-05:002010-06-22T09:17:13.433-05:00Sorry, Ryan. I updated the map to be closer to the...Sorry, Ryan. I updated the map to be closer to the actual alignment. There is some talk of using a disused rail ROW that lies west of King along part of the route.<br /><br />You're right that a lot of the city is just an ugly suburban mess. It ought to help that we'd not be despoiling an attractive urban streetscape, at least in the eyes of detractors. <br /><br />I think a parallel line on Webber and perhaps Westmount would work well, with loops on University/Columbia, and several loops along King. Nonetheless, it could be done for a few hundred million initially, less than the cost of the proposed LRT. It would require a much smaller or zero operational subsidy, and could displace some existing bus service.<br /><br />But, I think this is a story you can tell many times in small cities across North America.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-51373270697216390102010-06-22T08:28:42.691-05:002010-06-22T08:28:42.691-05:00(I've been in town longer than I expected, thi...<i>(I've been in town longer than I expected, this time, but I'll be gone for a week when I'm gone--which is likely today. The trucking life is a wonderful thing...)</i><br /><br />Ryan, I'm not looking for perfection. Just something that investors will see as far more than an incremental improvement in what's already in place. Investing huge amounts of money in a completely unproven technology isn't something that will happen unless the return is commensurate with the risk. And it isn't me you'll have to convince--it's the people with the money.<br /><br />For that matter, "Perfect is the enemy of good enough" is exactly what they--and the other systems' lobbyists--will be saying to you. And unless your proposal really is <i>orders of magnitude</i> better than theirs, it will be something you can't answer to their satisfaction.<br /><br />As to your analysis of the requirements for a PRT "killer app," I more or less agree. Just remember that your idea of "disposable space," for example, might not be somebody else's. Just because you like the kind of close quarters that mark an inner city doesn't mean this other group does too. Maybe they don't <i>want</i> to "compact" their campus, or village, or whatever. I think you may be eliminating opportunities a little too quickly.<br /><br />I suppose that's what I'm actually trying to say here. You (each of you) have a picture in your head of what PRT (or what-have-you) will do for <i>you.</i> Don't rule everything else out, dazzled by the blinding purity of your vision.<br /><br />When Wehrner von Braun dreamed of space flight, I'm pretty sure he never imagined that it would be sustained by television networks and weather forecasting agencies. I've read a lot of the visionary stuff from that period. Satellite communications came up precisely twice--both times in fiction. Weathersats never showed up at all, in the stuff I was reading. But they're the backbone of the space industry--because there isn't anything else that can offer what they offer.<br /><br /><i>(cont)</i>qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-67529866229037071432010-06-22T02:21:04.653-05:002010-06-22T02:21:04.653-05:00Interesting Andrew, I'm assuming the proposal...Interesting Andrew, I'm assuming the proposal for the LRT is for it to run down King all the way? The lines you drew make it look possible you intended Webster for part of the route.<br /><br />How would you envision configuring PRT there? It seems probable you'd have a line going down King since almost all the cities commerce (that's the impression Google Earth gives me) is located along that route. Webster seems less commercial but would be a decent companion to King, especially if King was one way as the more conventional PRT designs go.. though maybe in this case you'd break that convention. Webster is about 3/4 miles apart at the farthest.<br /><br />You could run a line across Erb going as far west as University. A line down University could give access to the golf course and the university. On second thought, this seems University looks like it's very non-pedestrian friendly. Looks like Erb and Fish-Halina may be a better way to the University because that passes by some apartments that could benefit alot more from PRT than the golf course (the clubhouse is way on the other side hidden inside some semi-private roads anyhow.. I guess they were trying to keep people out, how nice of them ;p).<br /><br />Belmont might be another good side line to King and maybe Highland as another connector?<br /><br />Hmm.. hard to tell from just satellite. Hard to find the walkable areas. Going by big box stores doesn't really seem to worth it to me unless you can also swing by plenty of apartments at the same time.<br /><br />A lot of the city is that obnoxious curly cue street junk, and it seems to me like that's going to be a big obstacle to penetrating any of those enclaves.<br /><br />Ideas? Maybe take a look at Columbus, Ohio. It's a bit bigger than Kitchner-Waterloo, something a bit over a million. It has no transit now except for a low quality bus system. The downtown has languished for years, but a insurance company headquartered locally, Nationwide, has done a lot to develop a new Arena, restaurants and such in an area just north of downtown, and if you follow High St. a bit farther north you hit OSU, the largest University by population in the entire U.S. There's an interesting area east of downtown called German Village which could benefit from some campus links. North of campus things trail off into lots of housing without much commerce, but it still may be worth running a line all the way up and down High to reach a two north end areas, called Polaris and Easton. Both have big malls, Easton is a little more attractive to PRT because it's a mostly outdoor mall that encourages walking just a little. And the cities airport is over on that side which you could put at the center of a connector from Easton and one running along Broad through Bexley.<br /><br />West of downtown you could loop through Grandview Heights and some of Upper Arlington before looping back through campus.<br /><br />You know by the way... we need a way to share pictures here.Ryan Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358323841471401980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-50912741951151764012010-06-21T23:23:27.609-05:002010-06-21T23:23:27.609-05:00More broadly, I think airports are actually a pret...More broadly, I think airports are actually a pretty good place to start. They need people movers, and PRT has great potential there. They are tend to be the centre of their own little node of economic activity, with nearby logistics firms, convention centres, hotels, office parks, etc. Unfortunately, it may be hard to expand these networks beyond these nodes, depending on the surrounding urban fabric. A sea of low-density housing would tend to make things challenging.<br /><br />The example I used above of small cities with high proportions of students and that are beginning to experience traffic constraints that can't be solved with normal surface bus service are pretty good targets. You can hit a large portion of the region with a moderate initial investment, the system is likely to see high, consistent usage, and the surroundings aren't challenging from an engineering perspective.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-18665681030083246532010-06-21T23:15:01.156-05:002010-06-21T23:15:01.156-05:00I think the reason why there is skepticism toward ...I think the reason why there is skepticism toward gondolas, even in applications where they might be well suited, such as a few large trip generators in a corridor, is that a system based on the technology is not readily scalable. It's all too easy to imagine it as either an orphaned system that is underutilized because it doesn't work well with adjacent systems, or it becoming a victim of its own success, leading to a overwhelmed system that can't readily shed demand to adjacent systems.<br /><br />So, even though a gondola might be superior to PRT between a handful of large trip generators in a corridor--and I'm not convinced of this--the flexibility and modularity of PRT ought to make it more appealing. New stations can readily be added without impacting operations, as well as branches and loops on the original corridor alignment.<br /><br />I still think a killer app would be a small city. The one I have in mind is Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario. <br />http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?client=firefox-a&hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=115449720311537449338.000478767b7d9764de947&ll=43.457156,-80.464554&spn=0.15526,0.338516&z=12<br />It has a metro population of about 400,000 to 500,000. It has two urban nodes, two universities, two regional malls, Research In Motion's campus, a large farmer's market, a number of large hospitals, etc. all along the 10 km stretch of King St. With a few loops, this area would provide a large number of trips from diverse origins to many destinations, be used on and off peak, and it has a captive market of some 35,000 students, most of who do not use a car, and rely on transit to conveniently reach shopping and entertainment.<br /><br />The region is currently looking at investing $790 million in a LRT line to serve this corridor. Or course, with PRT, that kind of money would go a lot further, allowing several parallel streets to be served, and loops created to pull in nearby demand that is not directly served. LRT is causing a lot of controversy due to the high cost and the removal of traffic lanes on King Street, which is not especially wide, being never wider than four lanes.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-16592432934020695852010-06-21T22:59:11.849-05:002010-06-21T22:59:11.849-05:00By the way, one thing I realize you might easily m...By the way, one thing I realize you might easily misinterpret is that I'm not suggesting the right application of is to simply run it in a corridor configuration as a competitor to LRT.<br /><br />What I am suggesting is that where an LRT corridor makes sense then PRT run in corridor configuration is usually going to promise more for less. In most such situations a PRT network makes even more sense.<br /><br />The reason PRT has to primarily compete with LRT, BRT and normal bus service is for two reasons. <br /><br />One is the source of funding/approval. PRT has a lot of promise to be more self sustaining than existing mass transit, but public investment seems very probable to be very important. More importantly, PRT needs right of way grants in order to build the elevated track. Even if you could somehow buy that on your own, you'd need zoning changes and such.<br /><br />That ties into the second reason, which is that approval is only going to come from people who are either already committed to public infrastructure, or have just recently come to the conclusion that the automobile system is no longer functioning. To succeed in an area dominated by a system so different in the way it gains funding requires that system to be in crisis. There is quite simply too much inertia within those who are currently profiting.Ryan Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358323841471401980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-49362354870793140262010-06-21T20:05:42.235-05:002010-06-21T20:05:42.235-05:00Be careful in assuming that such a thing exists. ...Be careful in assuming that such a thing exists. Perfect can be the enemy of good enough.<br /><br />Lets try two angles here. PRT is adaptable, but it's not as adaptable as a computer. I think we can fathom the full range of possible use cases since it's pretty much limited to transportation, and we basically know every applicable origin and destination.<br /><br />We can throw out the very simple case, of just generally leaving and arriving on the basis that you already can get from any origin to destination if you've got the time and some working legs. So for there to be a case where PRT is the only thing that will work, you'd need some second order scenario in which something valuable cannot exist without one of the efficiency improvements (time, cost, energy, safety) offered by PRT.<br /><br />What would demand one of those to exist? If it doesn't require large amounts of space, then it would usually be more efficient to compact it close and offer walking and biking as they always provide direct to destination service. Only when distances become larger can there be an order of magnitude difference between the speed of walking vs. PRT.<br /><br />If the space is larger and there is disposable space and money, then roads and cars can be used. It's more expensive, but often there's some justification for roads anyhow, plus in general they're mostly built today.<br /><br />It's only when there is a fairly large area, there is relatively little disposable space and a any origin to destination capability is required that PRT could be the only possible option, rather than simply the best option.<br /><br />I think PRT is different than the automobile or PC. That doesn't mean it's not going to be successful and certainly doesn't mean it's not valuable, but it does mean it's probably not going to emerge in quite the same way.<br /><br />PRT is more like a water system than cars. People lived for thousands of years, generally without running water although much of the technical capability existed for most of that time. It was always possible to have running water and sewage lines, as evidenced by Rome, but most societies never got around to actually creating those systems until they'd gone through numerous outbreaks of water borne disease.<br /><br />Cars are the sewage running through the streets of our modern day cities. The basic need exists, and so the question is how best to manage it.<br /><br />The reason I find the most promise in looking at areas where other options are already challenging the car rather than looking for some novel way to challenge the car is that it is very difficult to challenge something individualistic like the car, with something not so individualistic, and those opportunities only present themselves when the problems are abundantly clear. And of course when those opportunities present themselves others will try to present their solutions as well.Ryan Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358323841471401980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-41544986107014567212010-06-21T06:13:04.057-05:002010-06-21T06:13:04.057-05:00As for the gondola comment, I was mostly talking a...As for the gondola comment, I was mostly talking about the futility of competing with established tech in areas where said tech appears "good enough." The gondolas are a better competitor to LRT in most of the proposals I've heard than podcars would be. PRT doesn't have a real advantage in a straight line or a loop.<br /><br />Part of the "killer app" aspect I've been trying to describe is the search for an environment where "direct to the destination" is an OVERWHELMING advantage. Where they wouldn't even THINK of LRT because it simply wouldn't work.<br /><br />Dan is correct when he says PRT's most direct competitor is the car. But again, you need a place where, for some reason, the car isn't really a viable alternative. Or where more cars just won't cut it with the locals. Then PRT has a chance of selling itself.<br /><br />The way Peachtree City, GA became (to some extent) a "golf cart city." Nobody planned it--I gather the golf cart paths were an afterthought. They had to keep the power, water, etc., rights-of-way clear anyway--why not make them bike paths? And some people started using their golf carts on them to run errands, and the whole thing snowballed.<br /><br />If the fellow in that paper I referenced earlier is right, any real transportation revolution is going to happen more or less that way. You may start out with a Governor Clinton (of New York, not Arkansas) digging a "big ditch," but then everybody sees the advantages and piles on.<br /><br />We shouldn't be looking for a place we could squeeze PRT into. We should be looking for a place where it's needed, desperately, and nothing else will do. Then let it flow back into the apps you want.<br /><br />In other words, where are the crazy ideas, one of which just might work?qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-54722267172119469062010-06-21T06:02:08.916-05:002010-06-21T06:02:08.916-05:00This is a quick toss-off before dashing out to my ...This is a quick toss-off before dashing out to my car(!) to run a bunch of errands(!). Maybe I can think a little better in a bit...<br /><br />Ryan, I agree with at least half of what you say. Atlanta is one of those places that doesn't have a vibrant inner city, but I did live the way you do, sort of, for nearly ten years. And I enjoyed it, too. And I have no trouble seeing PRT the way you describe it as a wonderful addition to either city.<br /><br />But it's not a killer app. The killer app would be the one that made PRT such an easy sell that you'd hear everybody agitating to build one in Chicago after they'd seen that thing in Oakdale.*<br /><br />Like the killer app that put a PC on 10% of the desks in the country, and got everyone else thinking about what *they* could do with one. In a very real sense, the Internet was the product of Visicalc and Lotus 1-2-3. The idea had been around. There were even some people playing with it. But for the Internet to become what it needed to be, something had to make computers ubiquitous.<br /><br />Similarly, space travel could be said to have been made real by satcoms and weathersats. The moon race wouldn't have done it.<br /><br />It might be that the "inner city solution" could be that app for PRT if you could find the right place for it. But so far it hasn't been.<br /><br />For heaven's sake, keep looking for an "incubation zone" for that app--the fact that you're passionate about it might mean there are enough others somewhere. Meanwhile, let's keep looking for others. If we can find ONE that somebody will build...<br /><br />*Oakdale, TX is the idyllic suburb where Wishbone and his friend Joe live. Seemed like a proper imaginary place to put such a thing...qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-64369592471416056412010-06-21T01:01:42.313-05:002010-06-21T01:01:42.313-05:00In regards to LRT, PRT and Gondolas in corridor co...In regards to LRT, PRT and Gondolas in corridor competition, here's how it appears to me. Couldn't find a lot of details about Gondolas though<br /><br /><b>Gondolas</b><br />Top speed: 15 mph, separated from surface traffic<br />Network expansion: Via Transfer<br />Non-stop: No (unless the route has only a start and end!)<br />Price: Dunno.. guess it's inexpensive?<br />Visual effect: A few towers, a wire, some passing cabins, elevated stations.<br />Operational Examples: Yes<br /><br /><b>LRT</b><br />Top speed: limited by surface traffic<br />Non-stop: No<br />Price: $30-70mil / mile<br />Visual effect: At level stations, some track, passing trains.<br />Operational Examples: Yes<br /><br /><b>PRT</b><br />Top speed: 40mph, separated from surface traffic (probable optimum for this application)<br />Non stop: Yes<br />Price: $10-$30mi/ mile (2-way)<br />Visual effect: A few towers, a guideway, some passing cabins, elevated stations.<br />Operational Examples: Kind of.. ULTra, Morgantown (not really)<br /><br />So.. seems to me even in the corridors the downsides to PRT are visual effect and operational examples. I think if we solve the operational example problem more fully the visual effect (assuming a well designed system is used) will be less of an issue than commonly regarded. Initially it will be a huge obstacle, but if a place actually needs one of these three options, I don't think the visual effect will cause them to settle for LRT once they have confidence in PRT. I do however believe that the visual effect will be a huge obstacle in places that haven't convinced themselves they need something more than more roads.Ryan Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358323841471401980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-17193427315614258642010-06-20T23:40:01.996-05:002010-06-20T23:40:01.996-05:00A killer application is already known, it's ju...A killer application is already known, it's just not an easily achievable goal. The urban environment is where PRT would truly be disruptive, and in a very good way.<br /><br />First, in reading the rest of this post, do your best to approach it from the perspective of someone who has already accepted of the trade-offs of urban living. For example no backyard vs. ready access to many cultural elements.. museums, theaters, non-chain restaurants. Or privacy vs. a constant social connection. Some of you are bound not to be urbanites, it might be because there isn't a vibrant city center near where you work, or it might be because you balance these trade-offs differently. If you want to understand my arguments you have to look at it form essentially my perspective, because while I may hope a PRT system in the city will enhance a city in a way that draws more people in from the suburbs, ultimately it's not those new arrivals that will get the system built (or force it not to be built), it's those of us that are already here.<br /><br />What PRT does for a city is to bring it even closer together. PRT provides faster trip times, even for "corridor" travel because there is no waiting and no stops. However, cities need a lot more than "corridor" travel, but that's all that existing public transit systems can accomplish. PRT breaks that barrier and provides not just improvements but a whole different transit paradigm for that type of travel.<br /><br />Those effects are immediate benefits, but they have developing benefits as well. There are plenty of places in Chicago I don't go often because they are hard to get to.. they aren't necessarily all that far away, I go to farther places all the time. That disconnects me from that part of the city, and as I mentioned before, one of the things many city people are looking for is greater opportunity for connections (and no I don't just mean dating, it's much more subtle than that).<br /><br />Breaking down those barriers helps develop the city. Usually those areas benefit from greater economic activity, but the entire city benefits as well.<br /><br />Another developing benefit is that if it reduces the number of cars, and as a consequence the amount of space and infrastructure devoted to them. It's not just roads. Look at a dense city in Google Maps, and look for the amount of space devoted to parking.. You can't even see all of it since it's often in the first floor or basements of mixed use buildings. The point is, it's a huge amount of space, space that is essentially waste to me. It restricts the number of business I can have within walking distance, it restricts the amount of space for residential buildings, thus raising my rent, it restricts the space available for parks.<br /><br />Since a city is all about bringing people close together, taking out those parts that separate them has synergistic effects that emphasize many positives while diminishing many negatives. If those let a city grow up and reach a level of completeness it would have struggled to do otherwise, then that's another positive.<br /><br />I'd be happy to find another killer application for PRT, one with smaller hurdles, but because I already know of one, I'd be content in finding a incubating zone, much like the hobbyist trends you mentioned that were present in both the development of the automobile and the computer.Ryan Bakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10358323841471401980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-54978556342357320642010-06-20T22:22:47.299-05:002010-06-20T22:22:47.299-05:00(part 3(!!) of this comment)
Can you think of som...(part 3(!!) of this comment)<br /><br />Can you think of something that fits this description? The closest I've been able to come have been things like:<br /><br />*****<br />--A variation on Jpod's WalMart proposal: The virtual mall.<br />Several small shopping and/or entertainment districts in a smallish suburb, linking themselves together into a single large attraction, pooling their parking lots and customers.<br /><br />--On a similar note: The virtual theme park.<br />Several small- to medium-size attractions in a tourist town linking together, pooling parking lots, customers, and perhaps ticket facilities.<br /><br />--The corporate or college campus, of course.<br />The fact that nothing's come of that so far suggests it's not a viable notion, for a starter system anyway. But maybe that just means nobody's come up with a good angle yet.<br />*****<br /><br />None of these ideas have really impressed me--even when I think I came up with them on my own . But hopefully you (and others) can come up with better ones.<br /><br />So where else could you start--on a small scale, but where direct shots from "here" to "there" will open somebody's pocketbook?<br /><br />Now, just to stay on topic, I'll also mention that one of the reasons I like this blog is Dan's insistence on keeping all the versatility in his standard that he can. When you don't know what your "killer app" is going to be, you'd better not design out something that may make it possible.<br /><br />He's doing his part. I'm trying to do mine. I'm just technical enough to more or less follow the discussion here, but my inclinations are, as I've mentioned before, more philosophical. How would I use this thing? Where would it be worth using? And how do we persuade somebody to build it?<br /><br />Perhaps another forum somewhere should be brainstorming these things while Dan leads the effort to give them a foundation to build their crazy ideas on.<br /><br />Or maybe I'm just full of it. Opinions?<br /><br /><i>(Once again, I'll be safely out of town when the firestorm hits--this trucking thing can really mess up the thoughtful discussion thing, can't it?)<br /><br />[Ye gods! I swear to you, I had no idea I'd run off at the carpal tunnels like that! Just imagine what it would have looked like if I'd tried to be less blunt!...)</i>qthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09256501089151146138noreply@blogger.com