[Glen]

Personal rapid transit

I like the idea of a dual mode system.

 

[urbanfan89]

Nah. It's another fantasy from the Jetsons era.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

The idea has its merits and I'm very curious to go check this out when the system at Heathrow T5 opens up.
I think it would work best as a system where the rider has a personal stake (i.e., buy-in co-op system) to actually upkeep the vehicles... the levels of grossness that could happen if a frisky couple took a pod out for romantic ride around town.

 

[EnviroTO]

If it happens I can't see them using expensive guide-ways in addition to needing roads for emergency vehicles and deliveries. Instead it would likely use GPS and optical sensors to deliver automated cars.

I really don't expect it will ever exist though because it is simply too expensive to provide publically owned PRT. All those vehicles in the public domain would require frequent cleaning and maintenance and would not create much in the way of efficiency. The PRT vehicles don't tend to reduce vehicles on the road nor do the reduce the footprint of vehicles significantly.

It is far more efficient to deliver a good rail system and then have walking, bike-share, scooter-share, car-share, and personal vehicles to the stations.

 

[Glen]

The idea has its merits and I'm very curious to go check this out when the system at Heathrow T5 opens up.
I think it would work best as a system where the rider has a personal stake (i.e., buy-in co-op system) to actually upkeep the vehicles... the levels of grossness that could happen if a frisky couple took a pod out for romantic ride around town.

That is what I like about the idea. The city could operate cars on the track as 'public transportation' which would be single mode (no leaving the track). Those who wish could operate their own vehicles. The private ones would be dual mode. With the ability to do the bulk of a journey on a powered track it makes the use of short range (<10k) electric cars very feasible. It would also be able to expand to such areas as automated parking.


The linked report (link) makes a rather compelling case.

 

[catcher_of_cats]

Public will always be far more efficient then personal/shared transportation. The car is just like this technology, the only difference is that this one requires a different track instead of the roads that we already have.

 

[Glen]

Public will always be far more efficient then personal/shared transportation. The car is just like this technology, the only difference is that this one requires a different track instead of the roads that we already have.

Not really, the vehicles in a PRT are electric. Look at the comparisons starting on page 52 here. Makes LRT look poor.

 

[EnviroTO]

Not really, the vehicles in a PRT are electric. Look at the comparisons starting on page 52.

It isn't logical. An LRT will have far less manufacturing per passenger than a PRT. Look at a PRT with two doors and four seats for example, you need four wheels (1 per person), two doors (0.5 pp), one front wall (0.25 pp), one rear wall (0.25 pp), one motor (0.25 pp), etc. Take an LRT and you divide all the costs by far more people for example look at the SRT with no standing passengers: eight wheels (0.27 pp), four doors (0.13 pp), one front wall (0.03 pp), one rear wall (0.03 pp), one motor (0.03 pp), etc. I'm not even getting into maintenance and heating/air conditioning here. Some structural elements will require more engineering and material but not in an amount that would be greater than the increase in capacity. There is no rational reason to believe PRT could be more efficient than LRT when compared on equal playing field. PRT can only be more efficient if you decide LRT requires more safeguards than PRT, decide to run LRT without automated train control and have more employees and PRT with automated vehicle control with less employees, allowing PRT to meet lower levels of crash safety, etc. There is no way that I can see to make something which moves less people more efficient than something that moves more people outside of having a Jetson's like moving chair which would get rid of the need for encapsulation and self propulsion because when you have more people to divide the costs over efficiency is going to be increased. How can it not be?

Get two bicycles, one a normal bicycle and another a bicycle built for two... it takes less energy per person to pedal a bicycle built for two... for efficiency to be equal the difficulty pedaling would be equal with both people pedaling and double with only one person pedaling... but it is nowhere near that. A bicycle is as basic as it gets with no encapsulation, no air conditioning and heating, and a vehicle which weighs less than the passengers... but it is still more efficient to have two people rather than one.

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

Arguably, having to build more PRT units could lead to economies of scale on the manufacturing side. The cost per unit may decrease significantly depending on manufactured volumes, and could perhaps offset increased maintenance costs. It's all specualtion, but I wouldn't compare the two systems on that basis.

IMO , the PRT could provide flexible, low volume, transport and the LRT can be said to provide high volume poin-to-point transport.

 

[Glen]

I trust the figures in the article. Remember that the vehicles for a PRT are lighter than a typical auto. They are planned to be battery operated with the need only to store enough energy to travel a few Kms, most of the time they will get power from the track. Most plans, specify a gross vehicle weight at under 2000 lbs. Compare that to Toronto's current streetcars at 50,000 lbs.

The cost to manufacture are not as simple as # of doors etc. Just like how we cannot derive the cost of a bike by comparing it to a car; 1/2 the tires, 1/4 the seating, etc. Large vehicles become increasingly inefficient by means of having to lug around their own weight. They also require higher average riderships in order to reach energy efficiencies. They are poor at scaling for demand, passive scheduling versus an on demand system.

Read again the article and the references. It is very thorough.

 

[Hypnotoad]

I've seen the future of personal transit. It will be an intricate system of tubes will shoot you around the city.

The Tube Transport System consists of a vast network of greenish transparent tubes connecting every part of the city. At regular intervals tubes interconnect ensuring multiple redundancies in the grid. Several major "hubs" spanning more than 100 yards serve as citywide transportation nodes. TTS exits are located on practically every street corner.

The Tube Transport System is free of charge and government funded.

There will also be: phone booths for killing yourself; robots who rob you; mutants living in the sewers; the heads of famous personalities from our era living in jars; evil brains bent on destroying the Earth; chicken lawyers; and a toad who all must obey.

 

[TKTKTK]

When you factor in the near-complete re-doing of our transit infrastructure to accomodate PRTs, do they still end up ahead from an environmental / energy-use standpoint?

 

[EnviroTO]

I trust the figures in the article. Remember that the vehicles for a PRT are lighter than a typical auto. They are planned to be battery operated with the need only to store enough energy to travel a few Kms, most of the time they will get power from the track. Most plans, specify a gross vehicle weight at under 2000 lbs. Compare that to Toronto's current streetcars at 50,000 lbs.

Toronto's current streetcars are overweight ones from the 70s. Even still 50,000 lbs is divided by 46 seats (1086 lbs/person ) or a standing load of 102 passengers (490 lbs/person). A PRT vehicle would probably have the same average load as a car (i.e. 1 or 2 people). Even at 2000 lbs with 2 passengers the PRT vehicle would be only comparable (1000 lbs/person) to the 46 passenger old heavy streetcar.

Read again the article and the references. It is very thorough.

There are equally thorough documents created by cigarette manufacturers out there. I don't see any science that would allow you to move less people more efficiently. Yes, you need to fill the seats on the streetcar but that is what reducing frequencies and using smaller vehicles is all about. The PRT only becomes competitive on the thin underutilized routes where car-share, walking, and bicycles could be used.

 

[afransen]

PRT couldn't replace subway/GO heavy rail in terms of capacity. It could probably compete with highways to some extent.

 

[Glen]

Toronto's current streetcars are overweight ones from the 70s. Even still 50,000 lbs is divided by 46 seats (1086 lbs/person ) or a standing load of 102 passengers (490 lbs/person). A PRT vehicle would probably have the same average load as a car (i.e. 1 or 2 people). Even at 2000 lbs with 2 passengers the PRT vehicle would be only comparable (1000 lbs/person) to the 46 passenger old heavy streetcar.

It is more often than not than they are below the 50% capacity that is the equivalent to the one person PRT. Also missing in your calculations is the energy expended for accelerating. A PRT is a point to point system. Not having to make unneeded stops increases energy efficiency greatly. It also benefits by having its operating cost born by the user.

There are equally thorough documents created by cigarette manufacturers out there. I don't see any science that would allow you to move less people more efficiently. Yes, you need to fill the seats on the streetcar but that is what reducing frequencies and using smaller vehicles is all about. The PRT only becomes competitive on the thin underutilized routes where car-share, walking, and bicycles could be used.

You seem to be dismissing the report without having read it. And what do you mean by competitive? Competitive with the likes of the Spadina LRT? How competitive is replacing the profitable 77 bus route with the 140 million LRT that looses $20,000 per week?