02 March 2006

Personal Rapid Transit

This has the look of one of those, 'if only we could do this...' ideas. But I'm hopeful and would love to see this kind of thing succeed
The basic idea is having an elevated track with personal-sized cars, only big enough for 2 to 4 people (and normally used for solo trips). Cars on the main track always go at full speed, with cars shunting off to side tracks for entry & exit at stations. These stations would be located a reasonably short distance from each other so users would never have to walk too far to get to a stop, and stations would always have empty cars waiting for the next user to arrive. This individualized service would be made possible by having all the vehicles automated--no human drivers in the system, just smart network-management software.

WorldChanging: Another World Is Here: Personal Rapid Transit:Filed in: , , ,

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

it'd be hugely expensive to build the railways. why not save some money and leverage existing infrastructure?
like train and subway rails - then you'd just need car access ramps built in

Anonymous said...

naw, just automate the cars on the current roadway. no need to use the rail system - sure you are saving money not needing to build an all new 'road' for these supercars, but the industry still would have to buy all of the cars! hugely expensive.

instead, leverage the current highway system, and make the consumers buy the automated cars. For incentive, make "automated car only" lanes. Sure the technology is still 5-10 years away, but better wait till then instead of blowing billions of dollars to start on a premature system now.

Anonymous said...

Personal Rapid Transit has some expensive failures (Denver Airport Luggage Handling System that United Airlines dumped 186 million of debt on the public) and no real working examples after 40+ years.

Most other technology that works is adopted after 40 years, think automobile, train, light bulb, radio, computer. PRT is the Zepplin of transit, some shriveled evolutionary branch that will not bear fruit.

"Spend and tax" not "tax and spend"

 I got a response from my MP which got me kind of mad. You'll see why as I reproduce it here. Apologies for the strange changes in types...