News   Jul 16, 2024
Minto Submits Modifications to Grand Park Village Plan in Mimico
 683     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
News Roundup for July 16, 2024
 604     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
The Urban Jungle
 745     2 

ULTra Personal Rapid Transit

M II A II R II K said:
Maybe one day there could be an extensive network throughout cities, except the cars would be owned by the passengers that they'll board at their house.

Kind of like in Minority Report.
Click to expand...

I think that defeats one of the main advantages of such a system: it would only need maybe 0.3 - 0.5 vehicles per capita, versus the 1+ for cars. That is reducing the capital tied up by a huge extent. The infrastructure would still be fairly expensive, at $10 - $20 million per km (as estimated on their site, who knows if that is reasonable).
 
Unless one day the cars can ride on those tracks and the road at the same time, which also can be automated. And a few stacked layers of networks in crowded areas may be more than worth the expense if it gets people around those areas quickly without traffic problems.
 
This is basically a pitch for a transit system that can greenwash the American attitudes against public transit. Instead of mass transit, they have personal transit. How American.
 
Well, in terms of energy usage and land-use, this technology is nowhere as bad as cars. Considering that this has the potential to match the capacity of bus lines at lower cost, it warrants some consideration.
 
Ryan said:
This is better:

http://www.skytran.net/phpsite/home/Home Intro.php?bg=neg

http://www.unimodal.com/
Click to expand...

SkyTran isn't accessible by the disabled (no place to put a wheel chair, plus the stations only have stairs, another stumbling block for disabled and the elderly).

Doug Malewicki (owner of SkyTran) once said he could cover all of Orange County, California with a dense grid for less than the cost of their planned light rail system. To this day, they don't even have a small test system.

This not only looks better, but they're actually building something that will be open later this year!
 
They address access for disabled on their site. They have decent solutions for moderately disabled people. Highly disabled individuals wouldn't be using regular transit anyway.

I also take issue with the position that unless a service is perfectly accessible to everyone, we can't have it. So long as there are credible alternatives provided for the disabled, I don't see why this should be a stumbling block.
 
rbt said:
Not to mention there is far too much privacy. I can't even imagine what may be found on the seat or floor when the vehicle arrives to pick you up.

Think of what goes on with cabs then take away the guy to kicks them out and cleans up the mess.
Click to expand...

Why not sell PRT cars to the public? The "tracks" (actually elevated roads) look simple and relatively cheap to build.

Those who don't want to buy can use rentals, but they'd have to give a credit card or other form of identification so they could be charged for any damage they do. Cameras installed in each rental car could provide the evidence necessary to press charges if needed.

Let's see what happens in London next year when their system opens. If it works there, maybe some large city like Toronto should consider a test system in the heart of their downtown.

I wonder if this thing could be scaled up to serve a large population, like Tokyo or Manhattan...
 
Bootstrap Bill said:
Why not sell PRT cars to the public? The "tracks" (actually elevated roads) look simple and relatively cheap to build
Click to expand...

Good idea. And we can have some kind of a storage place near where they work and another near where they live so the vehicle is always nearby.
 
rbt said:
Good idea. And we can have some kind of a storage place near where they work and another near where they live so the vehicle is always nearby.
Click to expand...

Is that sarcasm? Because I hope so. The whole point of this technology is that people don't own the vehicles. You need far fewer of them, while providing service nearly as good as a car (perhaps better in terms of avoiding congestion).
 
afransen said:
Is that sarcasm? Because I hope so. The whole point of this technology is that people don't own the vehicles. You need far fewer of them, while providing service nearly as good as a car (perhaps better in terms of avoiding congestion).
Click to expand...


For me, the primary purpose would be to provide a grade separated "road" with vehicles that have autopilots. I think we could have both rental vehicles and privately owned vehicles, just like we do today with automobiles. Not everyone wants or needs the same thing. Looking at Ultra PRT's web site gives me the impression that all of their vehicles will be identical, even down to the color of the paint and upholstery.

Private ownership of PRT vehicles will give people the kind of freedom they have today with their own automobiles.

My ideal PRT system would have vehicles that could operate both on the grid and on our current system of roads and freeways. The best of both worlds.
 
afransen said:
Is that sarcasm? Because I hope so. The whole point of this technology is that people don't own the vehicles. You need far fewer of them, while providing service nearly as good as a car (perhaps better in terms of avoiding congestion).
Click to expand...

Yes. It was in direct response to "Why not sell PRT cars to the public?".

Anyway, people don't need to own cars as they are today. It would be trivial technically to create a car-share program in which the car delivers itself to your front door and does not require storage at the destination.

A dedicated lane on major streets for automated movements (magnetic yellow line, etc.) and you're done without any need for a new network. Of course, this isn't what the public wants. I get the impression many people own cars to show off rather than for transportation.
 
Well, PRT won't be eliminating the need for roads, just reducing the traffic on them. So people can still own their BMWs or whatever. Owning your own PRT vehicle would be so much costlier that I can't really see many people opting for it.

The main stumbling blocks I see for computer controlled cars on surface streets are:
-pedestrian collision avoidance/safety
-unreliability in inclement weather
-expensive infrastructure
-difficult to grade-separate alignments, necessitating intersections
-heavy, expensive to own and operate self-propelled vehicles
 
I think ULTra got it right with PRT's balance between transit and car...

The system in an urban setting would really be meant just to eliminate all the single passenger commuters, which is most of the congestion. A full car, minivan, truck (with people and/or cargo) is more efficient then a bus or train, and PRT isn't meant to address those.

Having people own their own vehicles or using guided cars is much less efficient in my opinion. With public vehicles, you have a central pooled maintenance facility, which brings costs down and ensures that all vehicles are actually maintained. I think maintenance of the vehicle (particularly it's guidance system) is obviously very important, and I don't think I'd trust that to individual people.

As well having the vehicles continuously working is much more efficient then having half of them sitting in driveways/parking most of the time.
 
brainfreezed said:
I think ULTra got it right with PRT's balance between transit and car...

The system in an urban setting would really be meant just to eliminate all the single passenger commuters, which is most of the congestion. A full car, minivan, truck (with people and/or cargo) is more efficient then a bus or train, and PRT isn't meant to address those.

Having people own their own vehicles or using guided cars is much less efficient in my opinion. With public vehicles, you have a central pooled maintenance facility, which brings costs down and ensures that all vehicles are actually maintained. I think maintenance of the vehicle (particularly it's guidance system) is obviously very important, and I don't think I'd trust that to individual people.

As well having the vehicles continuously working is much more efficient then having half of them sitting in driveways/parking most of the time.
Click to expand...

The big problem with public cars is you have no way of knowing the condition of the car you will be using. People will leave their trash, spill soda on the seat. Some might defecate, others might do even worse damage. In the end, you might end up with a car that isn't fit for riding in. How do we prevent this?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top