The Morgantown PRT. Those vehicles sure do look personal don't they? Image by Brian M. Powell.
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is a technology that’s been dreamed about in transit circles for roughly the last 60 years with little to no progress. For those unfamiliar, the concept of PRT is based around the following 4 principals:
- Small, automated vehicles with seating for 2 – 8 people.
- Vehicles available on demand at stations throughout the system.
- Direct from origin to destination. Vehicles do not have to stop at intermediary stations.
- Non-linear networks of stops, thereby eliminating the need for transfers.
The concept is that for public transit to compete with the private automobile, it needs to replicate the comfort of the car. Fair enough.
The transit-geek-gadgetbahn-aficionado in me would of course love to see PRT sometime in my lifetime. But that’s based upon blind hope and little else. The fundamental logic behind PRT just doesn’t work. Here’s five reasons why:
ONE. Vehicle Capacity. The appeal of Personal Rapid Transit is that it’s personal.
And yet if every vehicle were loaded with only one single rider, there would be plenty of wasted capacity and seats. As a PRT system typically has only one single guideway, the system would basically just be replicating a single lane of under-capacity cars. There is, however, a solution to this problem. Which leads me to my second problem:
TWO. Solving the vehicle capacity problem negates the whole concept behind PRT.
The only way to solve the problem outlined in the previous point is to enforce a ‘carpool’ mentality. How popular is carpooling? Station attendants would necessarily have to force riders to ‘buddy-up’. 8 person vehicles would be filled by 8 people whether they were traveling together or not. Suddenly it’s not personal. Suddenly you have 8 different people traveling to 8 different locations. Which leads me to the third problem:
THREE. Station Attendants will cost money.
Any cost savings that PRT imagines would be erased by the need for station attendents to enforce carpooling during peak hours. Despite having these station attendants, it’s unlikely that the attendant will be able to group passengers according to their destinations. As such, we have a fourth problem:
FOUR. People going in 8 different directions must travel in 8 different directions.
So now it’s rush hour and we’ve got 8 different people traveling to 8 different destinations. Now the algorithm used to control the vehicles must calculate a linear route that stops at each destination sequentially. And that would be utter insanity. Imagine if you and your fellow rider were traveling to destinations at the exact opposite ends of your respective city!
You could solve this problem by giving everyone their own vehicle, but to do so leads us straight back to point ONE. The only real way to deal with this issue is to institute fixed routes, which leads me to the fifth problem:
FIVE. The Appeal of PRT is the Elimination of Fixed Routes.
If suddenly every PRT system is a linear fixed route, then what we have is nothing more than an Automated People Mover that has the ability to skip stations. Note, however, that as 8 different people with (presumably) 8 different destinations are using this souped-up APM, riders will still be faced with the situation of stopping at stations different from their destination.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the most famous “PRT” system in the world is the Morgantown PRT in Virginia -which shares a surprising resemblance to the situation I’ve just described.
SIX (BONUS!). Google’s already invented PRT.
It works and is a driverless car.
61 Comments
Ah, yes. I remember the old german telefone boxes. 😉
Proof: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Telefonzelle_in_Bochum_01.jpg
Actual experience with the Masdar City PRT system is that vehicle occupancy averages 2.0 on weekdays and 2.5 on weekends – double what you have assumed. For high demand situations such as Indian cities, we have developed methodologies that facilitate ride sharing in very large systems with no station attendants while allowing those who want to pay extra to pay per vehicle, rather than per ride, and maintain the personal experience.
Please educate yourself about the realities of PRT by visiting our website http://www.prtconsulting.com where you will find pictures, videos, papers, links, etc.
@ Peter,
So your vehicle occupancy is 2.0-2.5 riders? And what is the headway between those vehicles?
@ Peter,
But please clarify something for me and The Gondola Project readers: The Masdar City PRT system isn’t in operation. It doesn’t even exist yet, does it?
Okay, here I’ve got to respectfully disagree with you on a few things.
While as a fellow ‘gadgetbahn enthusiast’, I agree that PRT is a nifty idea never properly implemented, and may never be in my lifetime, there’s a few points here that I feel are straw men.
Firstly, point number 1: unused capacity. Most PRT usage estimates, if they are being genuine, use the estimated load of about 1.2 persons per vehicle when estimating capacity. That’s why most systems deserving of the name have a per vehicle capacity between 2 and 4 persons.
Secondly point number 2: 8 persons per vehicle is Not PRT. Morgantown’s misnomer notwithstanding, the proper name for that type of proposal is Group Rapid Transit, which is a similar, but different beast.
As your remaining points derive from these fallacies, they come across as a ‘straw man’, sorry to say.
I think that Gondola transit is a sound and implementable idea, with a proven track record. But I’d be much more inclined to listen to objections to PRT if they were more firmly grounded in an understanding of the technology.
To the general public, there honestly doesn’t appear to be much of a difference between PRT and gondolas. And from a technical standpoint they face similar problems and solutions. For example, you’ve recently been posting about stacked and doubled up systems. You’re not the only one:
http://openprtspecs.blogspot.com/2010/12/capacity.html
I present all this in the spirit of informed debate. I’m a fan of both concepts.
@ Scott,
If every vehicle is carrying only 1.2 persons per vehicle, then there’s going to be mass unused capacity. And the line itself is going to be virtually worthless as public transit. Just for absurdity’s sake, let’s assume one vehicle every two seconds (which isn’t possible, but whatever), that gives a PPHPD of only 2,160.
A more realistic situation would be every five seconds (at the absolute best). In that situation, the PPHPD is only 864. Use a “stacked” system, and that increases to 1,728.
While I agree with you in some respects, I simply cannot see how PRT can function in peak times (which is when the majority of commuters use transit) without people sharing cabins.
Steven , this system only presently runs at about a six second headway because there is presently no demand for shorter headways. However, a number of modern PRT systems have been certified for three second headways. Cabintaxi proved it could operate at 1/2 second headways but did not prove safety or reliability at those headways. I have no doubt that PRT systems will be operating at one second headways in the reasonable future. One second headways and an occupancy of 4 results in a respectable theoretical maximum guideway capacity around 14,000pphpd. Remember, PRT’s strength is network capacity, not guideway capacity.
@ Peter Muller,
But with vehicles operating at 6 second headways and an anticipated vehicle occupancy of only 2.0-2.5, you’re left with a maximum pphpd of only 1,500.
Beyond that:
1. Who is Cabintaxi, and how precisely did they “prove” that they could operate at 1/2 second headways?
2. Who “certifies” a PRT system so that they may operate at three second headways? BTW – even if they did operate at such a headway, at the anticipated occupancy, then you’re only reaching 3,000 pphpd.
3. And when can “one second headways” occur? We’ve yet to see a true PRT system in operation anywhere and yet you’re suddenly talking about one second headways?
But let’s leave that aside. Let’s assume that tomorrow one second headways are realizable. To realize your 14,000 pphpd, you would necessarily need 4 people in every single vehicle (according to you). And unless every single person in every single vehicle were traveling to the same destination at every single time then you’ve necessarily defeated the purpose of PRT.
This is where the logic of PRT breaks down.
Steve,
I’m glad that at least now we are on to more technically accurate arguments.
Cabinentaxi, a PRT system developed to the point of extensive prototyping in Germany in the ’70’s, demonstrated 2.5 second headways with ‘brick wall’ stops. It also demonstrated that 0.5 second headways were possible, but could not meet the defined standards for railway stop safety (as in it was possible, but the standard called for the ability to ‘brick wall’ stop one vehicle in the separation distance).
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/cabin.htm
Note also that it was designed for over-under track usage. It was also designed with GRT capacity available for peak use times, presumably to operate on scheduled service.
The system was never built beyond the prototype stage due to a change in government, and thus spending priorities.
2.5 seconds, though, should be a reasonable goal for system headways, which would make a peak capacity of 1728 persons per hour per track possible. Assuming a trunk line configuration of 4 tracks sharing one set of towers, 2 tracks per direction would yield 3456 persons per hour. Given computer managed routing, there’s no reason you couldn’t run 3 tracks one way and one the other during peak times, yielding 5184 persons per hour in the peak direction. Another factor to consider is that PRT systems typically assume a more spread out network wit multiple paths to the same destination.
I’m not a particularly strident supporter of PRT. I’m just interested in the idea enough to have done a bit of homework. There are plenty of problems with existing proposals and implementations. The currently understood model of PRT is pretty much defined by the problematic systems at Masdar and Heathrow, and it will probably be mired that way for some time. PRT is always an ‘almost there’ technology, because there are always several stages of prototyping in the way. I think that Gondola systems are much more achievable in the near term, and may very well be cheaper in the long run.
The transit geek in me is just as interested in a trip to Morgantown to try their (misnamed) PRT as it is in travelling to Medelin to try their (fully functional) gondola system.
I’m not a non-believer, honest.
@ Scott,
Whether you’re a believer in PRT or not isn’t the issue. I think you bring much-needed clarity and insight to the issue. As I said in the post, I’m hopeful for PRT, I just don’t think it will ever be realized in my lifetime as it’s currently imagined.
That could change in the future – I readily admit – but the industry has a lot of baggage to overcome, and few prospects on the horizon to do so.
My money’s on Google.
@ Peter,
you beat me to the point, and I have seen proposals for 1 second headways. I stuck with 2.5 because I could think of a proven system with that ability. Thanks.
Come on. Masdar right now is a few big buildings and that’s it. If and when it will be a small city I’d like to see the system working and then I’m interested in numbers. Right now… it’s just not what it is meant to be, yet.
I’m really looking forward to that day!
@ LX,
I look forward to it, too, if nothing more than as a cautionary tale. After all, it’s nothing more than a gated community. Which, I’m not really sure caters to the mass public transit market.
Scott, the Masdar PRT system went into operation in November last year. You can view video of it here http://www.prtconsulting.com/prtprojectvideos02.html
@ Peter,
Just for the sake of those readers who won’t bother to click on your link:
The CNN reporter in the video says the following (and not much else):
“At the moment, there’s only one destination for the (PRT vehicles).”
“The original plans were that these (PRT vehicles) would be used all over the city, but recent revisions to the blueprints have scaled back those plans.”
Please, Peter, be honest.
@ Steve,
Cabinentaxi was developed by the West German government in the 70’s, then shelved for political reasons. Ther certifying authority would have been the West German Ministry of Transport, or some such.
Thanks Steven,
I just wanted to clarify things a little. PRT has been a field of broken dreams for a long time, but not all of the criticism is deserved.
As for Google, their technology is impressive, as are the ‘stealth’ testing methods they used. The biggest hurdle for them, unfortunately, is regulatory. Who’s responsible if a robotic car crashes on a public street? If you go for designated ‘driverless roads’, isnt’ that PRT all over again?
IMHO, the only sensible solution is zip lines ;-}
@ Scott,
“If you go for designated ‘driverless roads’, isnt’ that PRT all over again?”
Which is exactly my point. Google is already far ahead of the PRT industry, which is why I bet they’re going to be the ones to pull it off first. After all, they have all the GIS data via Maps, Earth, Streetview; and they certainly have more capital than the PRT industry. Google could quite probably convince a major city to allow it to try this simply because they have the track record and money to push it through at all costs.
Steve, I am not trying to be dishonest – I am providing you with actual links to real systems. Had you visited our website as i suggested you might have seen this cabintaxi video http://www.prtconsulting.com/prtconceptvideos07.html The Germans had a very robust PRT development program that was abandoned for reason I do not fully undertsand.
Yes, the present Masdar system is small – 2 passenger and 3 freight stations. Yes, the plans have been scaled back, however, I believe they still plan to expand it somewhat. Yes, the other system about to come inot public service at Heathrow Airport is also small (3 stations). However, both these systems and the Vectus system which has Swedish DOT safety certification at 3 second headways have similar theoretical capacities to Morgantown – 20 passengers every 15 seconds = 4 passengers every 3 seconds. Let’s talk some more about Morgantown.
Morgantown has been running for over 35 years and has completed over 140M injury-free passenger miles – try that in abus or a train! Morgantown had a disastrous beginning but has run very well since the initial bugs were ironed out. It still exceeds transit level of service A and the University is considering upgrading and expanding it. While it is group rapid transit (GRT), not PRT, the lines between the two are becoming blurred. Vectus is developing a GRT vehicle that can operate on its PRT guideway. the concept will be to use GRT between selected station pairs with heavy demand and PRT elsewhere.
Modern PRT has proven difficult to bring into public service. However, automated cars will be no less difficult. Operating automated vehicles at speed in an open environment while meeting the very stringent safety requirements for automated vehicles is extremely difficult.
@ Peter,
“Morgantown has been running for over 35 years and has completed over 140M injury-free passenger miles – try that in abus or a train!”
Again, smoke and mirrors.
Morgantown’s safety stats have nothing to do with it being a PRT system. It has everything to do with it’s fully dedicated right of way. Put any technology – including buses and trains – in a fully dedicated right of way that’s completely grade separated and you’ll get the same result.
Furthermore, as you yourself stated, Morgantown isn’t actually a PRT system. It’s a “Group Rapid Transit” system, which is nothing more than an Automated People Mover with off-line stations. But if you have 20-40 people in a vehicle, chances are a lot of those people will want to alight at a variety of different stations – which completely negates the effect of having off-line stations.
Again, my money’s on Google.
One of the ideas of PRT I find intriguing is that it doesn’t really have a trunk line/feeder duality. Many existing transit systems have low capacity, short range transit (bus, car) feeding into some high capacity long range system (rail, subway, etc.). Thus there is this view that PRT needs high a capacity to be viable – we want that trunk line.
This view is similar to a high way/local road duality. But in reality, a big street grid has a much higher capacity than the one trunk high way, and that’s where PRT can be interesting. Because it should work along a PRT grid. And then the capacity of every individual line may not be so important. 10 parallel PRT lines, along every road, can have a high capacity along them – and they may represent the same area that will feed into a transit line.
It gets also interesting when you consider that every road may only need a PRT line in one direction on it. If you get on and what to travel in the opposite direction, the system can have you run for on block in the wrong direction, then have you turn twice to go the right direction along a parallel route.
The biggest problem I see is cost – both to implement every route KM – especially given the low capacity per route KM – and that you have to commit to a fairly large system of not fully proven technology to benefit from the network synergies.
@ ant6n,
“The biggest problem I see is cost – both to implement every route KM – especially given the low capacity per route KM – and that you have to commit to a fairly large system of not fully proven technology to benefit from the network synergies.”
Precisely. The technology is simply not scalable. PRT is asking cities to commit to a huge network right off the bat. If they don’t, they get an over-priced people mover that can’t actually move that many people.
Again, I wish PRT all the best, but the way the systems are currently envisioned, I simply don’t see how they can ever “take off.”
Steven, I am beginning to get upset by your conitinued accusations that I am trying to deceive people. In the future, please be polite enough to let me first respond to your rebuttle before making accusations. Yes, the reason Morgantown is safe is because the guideway is fully dedicated. It is also because of the fact there are no crossings (only merges and diverges) and because of the computer control system and automated vehicle protection system. These are all PRT characteristics.
Your concern about group rapid transit passengers wanting to alight at different stations was addressed in my sentence “the concept will be to use GRT between selected station pairs with heavy demand and PRT elsewhere.” So the GRT vehicles will be used between, say a downtown rail station and an airport, with PRT being used elsewhere.
I agree with you that asking cities to commit to a huge network is just not going to happen. As we are already seeing, PRT will start out in campus-like environments – universities, airports, hospitals and small communities. it will be used to stretch the reach of other modes like rail and LRT. Over time headways will come down, speeds will go up and networks will be expanded and linked.
All I am asking is that you do not knock PRT without giving it due consideration. PRT is not the solution to everything. Nor is it much of a threat to other modes (at least not for a long time). However, it is a mode that, I believe, fills a need and can help improve the viabilty of other modes with a last mile problem, such as high speed rail.
@ Peter,
My apologies. It’s not my intention to state that you are deceiving people. When I said “again, smoke and mirrors” I meant that your statement about safety was the kind of talking point that didn’t get to the heart of the matter. Claiming that the Morgantown PRT system is safe compared to buses and trains is an ‘apples to oranges’ comparison and one that isn’t fair.
As per knocking PRT without giving it due consideration: I have given it due consideration, and it is my critical opinion that it’s not a technology that is likely to garner much support anytime in the near future. I don’t ‘knock’ PRT just for fun. Part of being a planner, consultant, researcher, etc. is viewing the world through a critical lens. Not a negative one, but a critical one.
In fact, when learning about cable I spent a lot of time researching PRT as well. Obviously not as comprehensively as you, but enough to have a strong understanding of the technology, its history, it strengths and its weaknesses. My interest in PRT stemmed from the similarity in cabin sizes between PRT and cable as well as the issue of automation.
As I’ve said before, I truly do wish PRT all the best, but the current state of the technology doesn’t suggest a bright future. The logic behind the technology just doesn’t add up and until a system exists that does demonstrate in actuality what the industry claims theoretically, that’s unlikely to change.
Part of the problem may very well be the fact that the PRT industry is poorly funded, misunderstood and lacks support from senior levels of government. Having said that, PRT has also had 60 years and those well-funded, government-backed projects/programs that did exist never materialized into anything substantial.
More importantly, I do genuinely believe a company such as Google is likely to crack the PRT code before the PRT industry. Google is well-capitalized, has scores of GIS data and isn’t trying to invent something from scratch. Instead of complex guideways, switches and stations, Google would already have the infrastructure they need: Cars and streets. Simply a matter of porting in their software – which is what’s happening right now.
And that’s not a threat just to PRT, it’s a threat to all of public transit. But that’s just my opinion.
When PRT supporters start talking about massive PRT networks with multiple tracks down every street, and presumably stations at least on every street corner; it starts to look a lot like the automobile-road-system package, but more expensive and less useful.
Just noting that the number of wasted seats on 4-passenger PRT service sounds like a lot – 2-3 wasted seats per trip. Suppose the vehicle gets 100 MPG equivalent (they are electric), then at a loading of 1, the passenger is getting 100 pas-mpg. By comparison, a bus with average loading of 10 that gets 5 mpg is getting 50 pas-mpg. So, simply declaring that we cannot afford to waste seats is a spurious argument. The more important questions are – if we DID implement PRT widely and those seats were wasted, would the total energy use and/or cost go down?
@ Ian,
The problem is one of capacity. If every vehicle is filled to 25% capacity during peak hour, then there’s simply not going to be enough capacity to service the needs of peak hour. While I agree that the energy consumption issue is important, it’s only one out of several factors.
Whether on is on a road or an elevated private guideway there is only so much space. That’s one of the reasons behind our current traffic situation. Most cars during rush hour are only filled with one person.
Given that Google’s technology (let’s call it robocar) is being held up as the shining beacon, let’s do some comparative analysis between it and PRT. The primary difference between PRT and Google’s technology is the lack of dedicated, grade-separated right of way for the vehicles, so we should accept that as an inherent feature of robocars (otherwise, you get PRT).
But there is a reason why dedicated, grade-separated ROWs are a desirable feature. Let’s go over some of the considerations:
1. Speed
——-
Robocars will not be able to operate at higher speeds than cars presently do on city streets, simply because pedestrians, animals, etc. can at any time step onto the street.
On highways (grade separated), the reliance on traditional traction (rubber tires on imperfect asphalt) means that increasing speed will increase the risk of catastrophic accidents in the event of tire blowouts or other mechanical failure. This is especially so if there is mixed traffic with non-robocar vehicles, which is likely.
Inclement weather and deterioration of traction will also necessitate slower speeds.
2. Capacity
———–
For the same reasons I mentioned in the ‘speed’ section, BWS criteria will need to be applied to robocar. This means 3 second headways, which is actually less than typical operating headways on smooth-flowing highways (which is about 2 seconds). Headways for robocars are inherently no better than PRT. If, as you suggest, 5 second headways are required, this will represent a substantial reduction in road capacity.
For city streets, since crossings are at grade, each direction of traffic gets priority only half the time on average (and typically less to allow for left turns and signal changes). This means for a system operating with 5 second headways, vehicle capacity is at most 1 vehicle per ten seconds per lane on average, or 360 vehicles per lane per hour per direction.
You could theoretically (with a very sophisticated traffic coordination scheme), manage it so that platoons of robocars arrive at an intersection just as their direction gains priority, and thus reduce stop-and-starting and improve average speed. Of course, this requires homogeneity with no user-operated cars, and even then, a single pedestrian stepping into the street at the wrong moment can cause a ripple effect requiring vehicles to miss their appointed windows at intersections.
3. Cost
———–
Robocars will require sophisticated sensors and much beefier computational power than is currently available in cars today. It’s not a mere matter of adding software. This will inevitably add to the cost of each vehicle. Fortunately, robocars would make it possible for the rise of robotaxis (which more closely resembles PRT than private robocars), which would be much cheaper than current human-operated taxis. This has the benefit of drastically reducing the number of vehicles required to be owned by the population, saving a substantial capital cost.
Unfortunately, there will still be many private robocars, and it seems pretty inevitable that a robocar system will have many more vehicles than a PRT system of similar capacity, representing a larger capital cost. Even more unfortunately, these vehicles need to be stored, which can be quite costly in dense urban areas.
Roads aren’t free, either. This is a cost that’s usually borne indirectly through society, but increased car traffic requires investment in new roads, not to mention the maintenance of existing ones. Many robocar advocates like to claim that the infrastructure is ubiquitous and free, and this just isn’t true.
The vehicles will also be heavier than PRT vehicles could be. PRT vehicles can get their energy from the grid, whereas robocars will have energy storage (either gasoline or battery). They must also be much more crashworthy than PRT. Thus, they will require more energy to operate.
4. Safety
———-
Robocars are inherently less safe the grade-separated transit. Pedestrians and cyclists will continue to be struck by cars, given at a substantially reduced rate. Robocars will likely provide a large improvement in safety over cars today, but will fall well short of the safety possible in a true PRT system, particularly captive bogey systems.
There are probably other factors we could consider. Don’t get me wrong–I think robocars have potential. I just don’t bellieve they will obviate the need for better transit options, and that really ought to include PRT. PRT can easily outperform traditional transit and robocars in cost, speed, and efficiency in cities. Robocars will be very useful in the outer suburbs or any area with too low density. Heavy transit like subways will continue to be useful in very dense areas of cities. Buses and light rail better watch out, though, as well as a large proportion of car trips.
@ Andrew F,
“PRT can easily outperform traditional transit and robocars in cost, speed, and efficiency in cities. Robocars will be very useful in the outer suburbs or any area with too low density.”
1. If PRT can easily outperform traditional transit why hasn’t it? Why has google accomplished with a driverless car (I refuse to call it a “robocar”) what Ultra hasn’t in the same amount of time? Why has Google been able to drive over 1,000 miles in mixed traffic and another 140,000 miles with only limited human interference and the PRT industry can’t even get a 2 mile long, 3 station system to work?
2. Put driverless cars in its own right of way and most of your arguments fall by the wayside. For the idea of the driverless car to be scaled into society, it’s likely to be a requirement at first anyway.
3. Roads may not be free, but they already exist. Minor modifications to it would allow for grade separation. Add that grade separation and suddenly – as you, yourself admit – have PRT. Do that and suddenly you have an open technology that isn’t proprietary. That changes the game significantly.
Again, we’re not likely to see this anytime in the near future . . . but then again, neither are we likely to see PRT anytime soon either.
Steven:
1) Investment. There’s nothing inherent in the technology that says it can’t be done. Google is where it is (a prototype that is not ready for unsupervised use in the general public), because they have access to large sums of money and highly talented software developers and engineers. Good on ’em. I’m not even convinced that Google intends to commercialize this technology.
2) If you put robocars in a dedicated ROW, you still have all the capacity problems (@ 360 vehicles per lane per direction per hour). You allege that these make PRT infeasible, therefore robocars are infeasible. I reject your headways assumptions in general because they are ridiculous. Human drivers operate at 2 second headways. My point is that you can’t have it both ways. If PRT can’t pull off better headways, robocars certainly can’t.
3) Grade separation isn’t a minor modification. Grade separation means different elevations–either elevated or below-grade. That means very large expenditure, and probably higher cost than PRT could do it (only because a robocar PRT is not the most efficient instance of the paradigm). Because the vehicles are fairly heavy, the roadways have to be built to carry substantial weight.
Without grade separation (and the substantial expenditure associated with it), then my arguments are still very much relevant.
In anticipation of your disagreement on grade separation, please explain in greater detail what you mean by it, and how it would be accomplished, as well as how extensive grade separation will be, and what impact it will have on other forms of transportation in the city, including pedestrians, cyclings, heavy trucks, emergency vehicles, etc.
@ Andrew,
Let me withdraw my comment about headways. I’m not going to debate what is or is not theoretically possible. As it currently is there aren’t PRT systems on the road in any capacity so it’s a pointless debate.
If you wish for 2 second headways, then let’s assume 2 second headways.
To grade separate a lane of traffic using simple curbs would more than do the trick. In fact, I do believe that the grade-level parts of the ULTra Heathrow system does that. Problem solved.
There’s also the argument that grade separation will not be necessary. Likely in the short term, yes. But in the long term if all cars are legally required to be equipped with the technology (which will happen), then all cars will operate via swarm computing systems. In our lifetime? Maybe, maybe not. If you’re interested in this subject matter, Donald A. Norman’s fantastic “The Design of Future Things” spends considerable time discussing how swarm intelligence is likely to make driving much safer and easier.
And yes, the same capacity problems of PRT will exist with driverless cars. The difference being that a driverless car will be able to travel anywhere in a city whereas a PRT system will not.
Just my opinion.
“the PRT industry can’t even get a 2 mile long, 3 station system to work?”
The Heathrow system works by all reports. They have been slow in opening it to public operation. But real live people have been using it.
ULTra is in negotiations to install several systems in India. I guess that will be the proof that some will need that the technology works. ULTra is pretty far from the ideal, for PRT. I see it like the Model T. But it will be good to see the technology get some serious attention, and hopefully some more investment.
When it opens to the public, it opens.
Alright–we’re getting somewhere.
Curbs aren’t sufficient for grade separation, particularly at intersections. So, it’s effectively no grade separation at, especially since an outside vehicle could hop the curb quite easily if there are no bollards. And because we’re not using the third dimension, we can’t add any substantial additional capacity to existing cities.
I think we’ll also be able to agree that robocars won’t be able to travel at higher speeds, and thus substantial increases in average speed in cities is unlikely. PRT is not in mixed traffic, and thus can travel at higher speeds without endangering other modes of transportation. Perhaps that additional speed is worth something.
What, precisely, is the benefit of robocars if we don’t get increased capacity, energy efficiency or speed? Is it just safety? Safety is a laudable goal in itself, but it will hardly make robocars a disruptive technology alone.
You’re heralding robocars even though we only have prototypes (you can’t buy it), while dismissing PRT as vapourware when we have several installed commercial systems (you can buy it) carrying real live passengers. Forgive me for thinking that you’re more partisan than you claim.
@ Andrew,
Just because you can buy something doesn’t mean it works. You’ve also ignored the potential for entire roads to be turned over to driverless cars. It’s possible.
I’m not lauding the driverless car as something that can be purchased. I’m simply saying my money is on Google to make it a reality. Even if PRT does arrive in the next few years, I still think Google (or some other company) is likely to leapfrog it. But if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I’m not going to stay up late worrying about it.
Really this is all just a theoretical discussion and one where no one is going to be “proven” right or wrong.
Steve, you seem to be overlooking tha fact that 2getthere is open to the public. While the system only has two passenger stations, it also has three freight stations so it is demonstrating mixed passenger and freaight operations on a five-station system. Also it is disingenuous to claim that PRT technology cannot be made to work. Morgantown can operate in scheduled and on-demand modes which actually makes it more complicated than PRT needs to be. The technolgy is not the problem. The fear of trying something new in an environment (public transportation) that is seldom profitable and that typically involves numerous jurisdictions is the real problem. Developing a new mode of transportation that requires new infrastructure is no mean feat in this environment.
The problem with driverless cars is where the liability rests – surely not with the driver. So the company takling the liability is going to have to assume the worst (for liability as well as regulatory reasons). So in snow or freezing rain, they will have to assume the worst possible friction is available. This means very slow speeds and high headways in these conditions – in other words severe congestion. Morgantown PRT, on the other hand heats the guideway and is usually the last system to shut down in adverse weather – and they do so because nobody can get to the system. ULTra has its own methods of dealing with adverse weather (succesfully demonstrated when the last snow storm shut Heathrow Airport down. 2getthere is protected from the weather in Masdar. Vectus has demonstrated full speed operations in snow and ice (the vehicles scrape snow and ice off the rails). Dealing with adverse weather is simply much easier on a small dedicated guideway. This is an important issue most robocar enthusiast overlook.
@ Peter,
I’m not saying it cannot be made to work. I’ve said it’s yet to work as mass public transit. There’s a difference. I’ve repeatedly said maybe that will change in the future, but my personal and professional opinion is that the fundamental logic behind it is flawed. If you disagree, you disagree.
And I’m certainly no “robocar enthusiast” :). I simply think a company as large, experienced and as well-capitalized as Google is in a unique position to accomplish that which the PRT industry hasn’t.
Time alone will tell.
True enough, Steve. These topics are worth hashing out. I suspect you attracted attention because this post is essentially a hit job on PRT. You can’t fault people for quibbling with your assertions. Either you want a debate or you don’t.
There ought to be someplace where people can seriously discuss all the crazy ideas in transit technology.
@ Scott,
“There ought to be someplace where people can seriously discuss all the crazy ideas in transit technology.”
I’m hesitant to suggest this as I certainly wouldn’t have time to effectively moderate it, but could should I open the Gondola Project forum up to the general public and let that stand as a place to do what you just suggested?
There is a place to discuss crazy, new, and other ideas:
http://www.advancedtransit.org/news.aspx
ATRA sponsors this active discussion list:
http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators
@ Steven, This is one thing I truly hope you are wrong about. Though I would love to see driverless cars and expect that they will be inevitable, I really hope PRT comes sooner than later.
One thought I have is about a CPT/PRT hybrid. This seems to be extremely logical. You wouldn’t have to worry about headways for safety as they would be cable propelled and therefore would all travel at the same speed and react at the same time.
@ Sean,
I have no idea if I’m going to be right or wrong. More than likely it’ll be some third option :).
As for a CPT/PRT hybrid, it’s not a bad idea.
@ Sean,
at least theoretically, it would be possible to build a PRT like system using MDG or BDG technology, as they both allow gondolas to be detached from cables, and thus routed to another cable going somewhere else. I would worry about the resulting uneven loading though.
@ Scott,
Actually I meant terrestrial which would be much easier to implement than aerial.
@ Steven,
A forum would be nice, but if such a thing exists elsewhere, it’s not really necessary to re-invent the wheel. I wouldn’t mind discussing the craziness of a CPT-PRT system. Sam Wong in the Thought experiment thread mentioned a manually operated variant easily implementable in the developing world.
Would those Station Attendants be the same ones that force us to “Buddy Up” in our automoniles?
PRT needs to be considered in an area network context, random origin-dstination pairs. Not just replacements for the several fixed sements mass transit has to use to geet somewhere in the real destination.
Agreed. The problem, however with a PRT in an area network context with random o-d pairs is that public transportation isn’t built in that way. For PRT to be implemented, it would first have to replace fixed segments of mass transit. The problem, then, is that such action entirely defeats the purpose of PRT. That’s my problem with the technology – it isn’t scalable or implementable.
Steven, I have been thinking about your arguments and I realized that they apply to cars and roads too. I started doing some calculations and looking up research and it turns out there is no way we can afford such low occupancy in cars. If we assume 1.2 people in a car, and the car occupies 20 feet when stopped and much longer when moving, it would require about HALF OF THE ENTIRE LAND AREA of a city, just for transportation! Even then, the at-grade intersections would be backed up and it could lower average speeds to under 10 mph. That’s obviously ridiculous; no city would even consider that – people would stop going to work. And the accident rate would be ridiculous – cars breaking down all over the place. Energy use of such a system would be astronomical. Computer modeling of such a system show that it cannot be done – the needed capacity just isn’t there. I think you should start a blog on dispelling the myths of the car system and make sure people realize that IT CANNOT BE DONE before it’s too late.
Steven, PRT can still work for line haul applications. For instance, there are many LRT proposals where the passenger volume is quite low. Even current PRT technology, such as Ultra, could handle these applications. Worst case, you could supplement with buses for the 2% busiest times to reduce delays/number of vehicles required. More than that, PRT is nearly an order of magnitude cheaper than LRT, so in these marginal LRT applications PRT could provide equivalent or better linehaul service at lower cost.
As far as real-world development, Ultra is expanding at Heathrow, and actively developing large urban systems in India. The critics won’t be convinced until it is applied there, and even then they will say “It would only work in India”, etc. Thankfully, your skepticism does not stand in the way of these developments.
Andrew, I think the question is, if PRT is simply operating as a “straight line” replacement of an LRT system, then what exactly is the advantage of the technology? As the Morgantown PRT system demonstrates, the technology cannot allow on-demand service during peak times as the system would be overwhelmed. As for London, it’s really not much more than an APM system. India . . . let’s see what they build. I’m not actively rooting against PRT, but I have yet to see a really compelling argument to suggest how it stacks up.
I think these have been some of the best PRT discussions I have seen on the internet.
Some thoughts on PRT vs Robocar and Robocar’s future role:
IMHO, Andrew F has the best of this “debate” without even getting to the issue the snow and ice issue.
I think the work on driverless vehicles will lead to many positive things – just not automated vehicle networks in northern climates. One of the major problems of safe automated vehicle operation is control over the vehicle to “guideway” interface. There is no vehicle interface control over ice covered roads with normal rubber tired vehicles, hence the possibility of there ever being automated automobile operations on normal streets in areas where there is significant cold weather is a very low. Could an automated car ever be affordable if it is going to be able to dig itself out of being snowed in on the side of a street, which is typical for urban area automobiles across the entire northeastern part of the United States? Why buy an automated car if you need to dig it out and drive it under adverse weather conditions – will they be cheaper than a normal car that you need to dig out and drive? If you expect to go away from the streets and use special grade separated structures, then obviously, Andrew F’s logic wins easily again.
I think Google deserves a great deal of credit for forcing new technological advances on a transportation industry that has not seriously been interested in major change.
Hi Marsden,
I think the real question then is this: Hasn’t Google already accomplished more with a single driverless car than the entire PRT industry has in 50 years of existence? Doesn’t Google stand a better chance of creating a “true” PRT technology than others?
Morgantown does not prove anything about PRT. It is an ancient GRT system. It’s like saying Ford Pintos prove that modern cars are liable to explode.
Marsden, I don’t think snow and ice is a show-stopper for robocar. Robotaxis will be maintained by the operator, who would be responsible for digging them out from under snow (or they might just park them indoors when not in use). They may get stuck on snowy streets, which is admittedly a problem. I’m not sure it’s that different than what happens today. Ice/slipping is probably no more an issue than it is for human drivers. There will of course still be accidents, but I expect robocars to be able to recover better than human operated vehicles in slippery conditions. I saw a very impressive demonstration with a Google Prius taking people on white knuckle test drives on a rooftop parking garage.
True, Andrew, true. But then what do we have as a strong current example? London’s system? It’s basically two stations (yes, I know, it’s three, but let’s be realistic here) with a line capacity in the low hundreds. It took years longer than expected to build and does little more than what one of those rail-based old-timer car rides at a fairground can do.
Again, my skepticism in the technology stems from a lack of credible and useful examples.
Hasn’t Google already accomplished more with a single driverless car than the entire PRT industry has in 50 years of existence?
I do not know if it was Mr. Page’s intent to improve mass transit or to improve the ability of his company to photograph all of the streets in the world that led to the interest in the driverless car. If we are to accept his commencement speech at the University of Michigan a while ago, one sees that he had at one point an interest in PRT. Is that what is “driving” the interest in driverless cars? I would be skeptical that it is, and lean more toward the desire of reducing the cost of the manually driving needed to photograph streets, that initiated the effort – but who knows. I think Mr. Page has “Accomplished more” by being at the right place at the right time with the right knowledge, and most importantly, while others may not agree, “the courage” to step into the unknown and create the search engine and the company to make the “internet search” what it is today. That is a major accomplishment – a major creation of value! We as a society need all of this style of accomplishment we can get. Will the spin-offs from the dabbling in driverless cars be anywhere near the value of internet search… Has the driveless car had a positive impact on mass transit…. Has PRT had a positive impact on mass transit… What is the role that is envisioned for the driverless car as it relates to mass transit….?
Andrew, I believe that there will be many positives that will come from driverless car technology, and I could see that robotaxi fleets could be part of those. I am not sure of the value in mass transit, but if they could replace low density bus routs with robocar fleets, that would be a major advantage. Effectively applying PRT principles to the many low density bus routes – but at what cost in vehicles and maintenance? The problems with snow and ice seems always to be underestimated – not sure why. There are many issues here, but I have yet to see anything that deals with the related problem other than to indicate that solving these issues is farther down the development path. When a two way street turns to one lane ruts, how does a robocar know when to turn out in a game of chicken – and if it could, how does it get back into the ruts from the piled up snow…??
PRT of the Ultra variety is really no more than simple robocars on a lightweight dedicated guideway and a dispatching system, so should be a lot easier than equivalent robotaxis on public roads. I can see these technologies converging, the differences evolving more in the service characteristics rather than in the underlying engineering. PRT has always suffered from the proprietary system problem when applied to public funded transit. With trains and buses you can replace and expand easily, purchasing from a wide range of suppliers, with PRT authorities have understandably avoided ending up locked into a single supplier for what has until now been a very complex concept. That is why there has been no PRT industry as such thus far. This is changing with the technology itself no longer being the major barrier.
I wonder why is possible to think that PRT or Googlecar could be answer to the public transport demand.
They could be alternative to the TAXI , no more.
GiorgioXT
“the public transport demand” is a very blanket statement within which there many areas of significance where small automated vehicles can play a important role. When one looks at taxi usage in our major cities like New York, Chicago or Paris, taxis play a major role in the un-defined “transport demand”. Below is a link to a study done as part of the efforts to construct the Cabintaxi small vehicle system in Hamburg in the late 1970’s. If you have an interest in how small automated vehicle systems can play a significant role in real world situations, take the time to look at this in detail. The Hamburg effort was undertaken by a very broad high level team, which included all elements of transit professionals throughout the highly respected German transit world. Beyond question, still the most significant small vehicle systems effort ever undertaken. No major city transit property has ever come as close to the significant urban small vehicle systems installation which was under consideration by the Hamburg Hochbahn. While I concur with Mark that the “proprietary system” issue is a significant factor in the confusion that helps to block the introduction of these systems. In Hamburg, it was simply the fickle nature of government funding in general.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/big/Cabintaxi%20PRT-GRT%20Study.pdf
[img]http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/cabintaxi%20illustrations.htm[/img]