Richard Nixon Proves Personal Transit Actually can Work
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 06.12.07
There have been a lot of Personal Rapid Transit schemes proposed recently; this writer ignored them as being a particularly dopey and expensive way to get people out of their own cars; they won't work in low densities because people will have to drive to get to them; in high densities why not make comfortable buses or streetcars and get far higher capacities. They seem like nothing other than an overpriced way of giving people the privacy of their car and the ability to avoid sharing transit with other people who might make us nervous at great public expense and simply converting the fuel from gas to coal via electricity.
Then we learn from the New York Times that in certain circumstances they work quite well; at West Virginia University in Morgantown, Richard Nixon funded a demonstration project that has been running since 1975, slightly over budget as it was projected to cost US$ 13.7 and ended up ten times that. It is running point to point between two campuses of the University and serving students, so there is a relatively dense, car poor audience at each end. It has never had a serious injury and is running 98% of the time.
So it can work, under certain circumstances, with Nixonian dollars paying for it. Otherwise, we agree with transportation consultant Jonathan Richmond: "“The infrastructure requirements are such that it is not realistic to think it could be adopted in highly developed U.S. cities.” ::New York Times
I rode that and it was awesome... mostly on time, no problems. To have it rolled out aorund cities would be quite slick.
I think you are missing the point - you are not going to change people's minds about mass transit until it is as quick and convenient as a car.
Cost is obviously not much of a factor, or everyone would already be riding the bus. Its mainly the time factor every time I talk to people about it. Why take an extra hour or even two out of our daily lives riding transit when a car is faster and totally private?
I guess you have never had the pleasure of sitting on a seat that was just vacated by a street person in the summer who just urinated in their pants. Sure everyone gives you that "sorry" look, but they don't warn you...
Nobody cares if a bus is comfortable if the trip is crowded, smelly, stops every 100 feet, and turns at every opportunity. Personal transit avoids all of those problems.
And as for streetcars, Toronto just spent $900 million on a six-inch elevated right-of-way to ensure that the St. Clair route ran on time. Not faster, just on time. Ask any cyclist how much they like streetcar tracks...
It certainly sounds better for university students than a bus system. At my university the buses keep killing people, which keeps me from really liking them.
well, there are many things that can make mass transit people mover type vehicles successful. First, make it harder to drive everywhere. Second, utilize a simple and effective system that has an adiquate network that serves the surrounding population. Have those people movers then connected to a heaver longer distance type of transportation that will allow them to go from city to city....good city planning is key.
Kinda like what walt disney was thinking about...dang...he had some ideas that we're to stupid and stubborn to impliment today.
Its interesting that the author seems to have developed an opinion on PRT systems without doing any significant research. PRT _is_ designed to get people out of their cars., as any people moving technology should. Cars are inefficient in terms of energy per passenger mile, storage space (a significant portion of even dense urban area is dedicated to parking) and effort (people have to actually drive them).
The major benefits of PRT are simple: Its automated, and runs on dedicated tracking and is station to station. This reduces average trip times (one of the major complaints about mass transit) with no intermediate stops and direct to destination routing.
Tracks are generally elevated, and the vehicles small and lightweight enough that the cost per mile for the elevated track is much more reasonable that for elevated trains.
Even just swapping gas for grid based electric drive is a major benefit. Electricity is the "universal fuel" and produces essentially no pollution at the point of use, and significantly lower pollution overall.
While PRT is still unproven, it is a viable technology that deserves a strong look.
The Morgantown PRT is an expensive flop. I have collected stories about how students and faculty hate the Morgantown PRT because it is so unreliable and it fries squirrels.
Recently, the new Mayor of Kansas City had this to say about the Morgantown PRT:
...Funkhouser was also quoted saying the WVU PRT "wasn't really mass transit".
PRTs are much more widly used than most people think. Almost every major airport has some type of people mover.
Denver is a great example. The thing runs on tradition type tiers in a dedicated trough with computer control. No operators, no rails, electrically powered.
Why do we always think of mass transit in terms of infrastructure intensive with large groups of union represented operations staff?