But wait -- SkyWeb Express, the personal rapid transit company based in Duluth, MN (see below) might not be so stuck on building in Duluth after all. Or at least, they're telling Santa Cruz, CA that they are the perfect small city for personal rapid transit.
I've been a huge fan of PRT since I began hearing about it many years ago. It has a number of positive aspects:
So, long story short, it's a great idea for mid-sized cities. And I can't wait to see it implemented. But it's not the panacea that people think it is.
Post Author:
amg | 10:49 AM |
Link
|
TrackBacks
We already have PRT- it's called "cars." PRT is not a solution worth pursuing as it caters to autocentric development patterns by trying to create a copycat public system of road networks. However, if urban form continues as it has in the last 50 years, most people will need to drive to PRT locations without incredibly exhaustive extension of PRT. It's a gimmick.
Very true. I think it works on smaller scales (there's a larger-type PRT system at a campus in West Virginia, although it carries 8 passengers at a time), in that it can reduce time, but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for most implications.
On another note, who are you, Transitguy?
"It doesn't work for high-volume... when you haul 300,000+ a day, it isn't a feasible system." Au contraire: a 2500-vehicle PRT system running at 5 trips per car per hour could handle 300,000 a day with only 1 person per trip.
"people still only end up at a transit station and not at their final destination". In a well-designed PRT system, a station would be within walking distance (quarter mile) _no matter where you are_ in the city.
"this is not going to be a revenue generating endeavor... residents of neither Duluth, MN or Santa Cruz, CA, are paying $3-5 a head for a transit ride." Low cost of construction ($5-10M per mile) and low operating cost (no drivers, for one thing) means real possibility PRT will pay for itself. And Transitguy: the "exhaustive extension" of PRT you fear would only be a problem _if it were as expensive as bus or trains_. But it won't be, so it's not.
If you are acting as an agent provacatuer on this subject, then I might find your comments on PRT marginally justified.
However, if your comments are your true thoughts on this subject they are incorrect; and I suggest you actually make an attempt to study PRT.
I have and therefore I can make the statement that you have not and your statements as to why PRT cannot carry adequate numbers of people, why PRT won't work because people will still have to drive to far to access it and why it will never be a revenue generator are all invalid.
The reply posted by Mr. Grant is very much on point and he has nailed all the facts cold. PRT represents a true breakthrough in mass transit technology.
Why? Because unlike 30 years ago, we have new and advanced materials which reduce the costs to build the system, the cheap and massive computer hardware necessary to simultaneously control 50 or 60 thousand vehicles in a regional PRT system and the current automobile congestion problems, unknown decades ago, that make alternate forms of transit more desireable to the average commuter.
And I have not mentioned the environmental advantages, the low income rider and reverse commute problem and a host of other factors making PRT so practical.
I hope you post a retraction to your original comments on PRT. The negative aspects of PRT you listed above are all incorrect. IF you do a real analysis on PRT you will see.
And you will also be very upset that public agencies spend tax revenues on other forms of mass transit and thereby waste your tax dollars and mine. Bigtime!
