Slashdot Mirror
New Thoughts in Public Transportation
Matthew Shaylor writes "The BBC has the following article about an ultramodern public transport system to be tested in Cardif. Unlike conventional public transport, this consists of small cars that running on tracks can automatically take themselves to the correct destination. This allows there to be a mesh of tracks and stations thoughout a city, as opposed to traditional transport which tends to run along corridor routes to a city center. An interesting paper is available. Future versions may have dual control to allow people to drive the cars from the nearest station off the track to their homes. A true replacement for the car!"
Nothing beats the freedom of hopping into my car, when I want to and not waiting for public transportation, on their schedule. And taking the long way home, instead of the fastest route when I want to.
If that dual version becomes available, I'd like to see it, since it allows for some of the freedoms. But how would I return it?
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
I hate to say it, but I for one, would not want this. I live in Atlanta, a very large city with huge traffic problems. Well, my thoughts are this: I deal with the traffic here everyday (worst in America 5 years running btw) and there is a simple reason I do it. MARTA (Metro Atlanta Rail Transit Authority--I think) is not safe. Sure, these cars seem nice, but I don't think it will ever catch on here in the US. I wish it would, we throw enough smog and pollution in the air as it, but for my money, and safety, I will stick to my car. I have never been to Cardif, so I cannot speak for there, but I will speak of what I know.
:)
I am not trolling, but you will probably mod me as such since my opinion doesn't jive with the new tech is good slant of the article.
Yehaa, let the flames begin
Sent from your iPad.
RUF combines the best of cars with the best of trains
The RUF system is a system where all vehicles can drive in 2 ways (Dual-Mode). They can either use the normal roads or they can "ride" on top of a triangular monorail.
The RUF vehicles can both be cars (ruf) and busses (maxi-ruf). The rail (guideway) is a very slender triangular monorail made from 20 m long modules and carried by masts.
When the vehicles "rides" on top of the monorail, the center of gravity is placed below the top of the rail, so the stability is very high. Derailment is impossible. It is possible to squeeze the top of the rail in order to make an emergency braking. This way it is possible under all circumstances to brake in a very short time. Short safety distances means large capacity.
Energy consumption is very low due to the close coupling of vehicles to form a train. This principle also increases safety, since collisions within the train are eliminated when the vehicles already touch each other.
The rufs are electric vehicles with small batteries. The batteries are partly recharged while the ruf uses the rail.
Another good web site on the topic is Taxi2000.
Make sure you check out their FAQ.
The important topic that's always brought up is infrastructure. The beauty of the PRT design is that the infrastructure costs aren't all that appalling, since all the system needs to run is a narrow elevated track which can be built above existing roadways (so no right of way issues, etc). Yeah, it's more expensive than bus stations, but it's *way* cheaper than tunnels or elevated train track.
This is a concept commonly refered to as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), a subset of Automated People Movers (APM) found at many airports. PRT has been around for a while and has somewhat fringe supporters (like me). Edward Anderson at the University of Minnesota has generated some of the most credible system designs and incorporated under Taxi2000. In fact, Raytheon developed a full test track of Anderson's concept outside of Boston; Bostonians can visit thier Marlborough, MA facility and see the future,!
The reason that PRT remains a fringe concept is related to economic challenges, not engineering ones. Although there are claims to the contrary, the general problem is that - like all public transit - PRT require a very high inital capital outlay. In dense urban areas, right-of-way costs are prohibitive. However, just as with information networks, public transit networks generate positive externalities: the larger the system, the more useful it is to everyone.
Furthermore there is little incentive to invest in expensive public works projects have prevented the testing of a fairly unproven technology. Public agencies would much rather invest in light rail systems that they have seen before than fancy driverless systems. Also, there is no conclusive proof that these decentralized systems can sustain the high corrider passenger/hour throughputs that make public transit so desirable for really dense urban areas.
Hopefully, projects like Cardiff will succeed and PRT will get recognition and legitimacy, but this is a technology that has been kicking around for a while and - as you can probably tell - is not insanely complex. As usual, economics and public policy get in the way of interesting engineering!
The Docklands Light Railway in London has driverless, computer controlled trains (not cars, yet, unfortunately).
Hogsback
Urban Light Transport has more information on their web site, including some much higher-res images, FAQs and other info.
The most interesting (and not really mentioned) factor is that the automatic taxis don't travel on predetermined routes, they navigate their small network of paths to get to your destination.
The problem in most countries is that cities weren't designed for cars, or for the number of ppl. So you've got a large number of ppl trying to drive on very small roads. And the roads can't easily be expanded, bcos there's bloody big tower blocks, offices, churches and other good stuff on each side. Added to this, much of the inner city in a European city is _old_ and is basically irreplaceable - any bozo could rebuild the Empire State and all other US landmarks bcos they're all simple concrete-and-glass skyscrapers with little historic value (none over 80 years old), but you couldn't do the same with the Tower of London!
So think in terms of computer files. If you can't improve your network connection, you compress your files to make the most of the bandwidth. That's the idea the rest of the world uses, getting more ppl onto buses, trams and trains to transport as many ppl as possible per unit of road space.
But even the US has this problem - think Manhattan in the rush hour. In spite of the number of roads, there's still terrible traffic problems. Trouble is, the US places a stigma on public transport - using a bus is an admission that you can't afford a car, and that's some kind of venal sin in the States. Cars for Americans aren't penis substitutes, they're more a way of demonstrating your wages and status. You might as well paint a big sign on that SUV saying "I earn more than $60,000 - suck my dick you cheapass losers". Until this attitude changes, the US will (1) continue to get worse traffic problems, (2) get worse pollution, (3) continue to use more energy per person than any four other countries, and (4) have to bend over and take it up the ass any time the Arabs decide the Yankee Infidels are getting too big for their boots.
Grab.
- Innovative Transportation Technologies - Descriptions of over 40 electric, automated transport technologies, ranging from conceptual to operational. Includes people movers (supported and suspended systems: monorails) and automated freight systems.
- Monomobile: Electric Rail Car - Lightweight electric car that attaches to suspended monorail for long trips and can run independently of the rail for local trips.
- RUF: Rapid Urban Flexible - Hybrid car/monorail: you drive it on and off roads and monorail tracks as needed.
The last one is one I remember in the newsin the past year. of course, being Danish, it might not get promotion in the British press."It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
People will destroy and/or urinate in anything that is remotely "public" if they are not being watched (and sometimes even then). For you see, most of us are complete assholes, especially when drunk.
Won't the maintainance cost be huge on these things?
Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati
The most comprehensive info on PRT is available at Jerry Schneider's Innovative Transportation Technologies site in the section on Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). The site has a much broader scope and compares PRT with several other systems as well.
In Japan, you can get pre-paid cards transportation (and phone) cards from a vending machine (or convience store, or wherever) and once they are used up, you can throw them away. You can't be tracked using that sort of system.
11.6 miles.
$675 million. Half comes from the Federal Transit Administration, another $50 million from a federal CMAQ grant. Rest from various state/local sources. The biggest chunk pays for the extraordinary tunnel project under the airport.
It's not meant to benefit anyone in particular. It's meant to provide people with options. Yes, not a lot of people at the moment. The hope is for the line to become part of a regional transit system (including the Dan Patch corridor, Riverview, North Star, Hwy 61 corridor, etc.).
You're judging it with a time horizon of only a few years. It's an expensive project, but viewing it with a 30 or 40 year perspective and assuming the development of a network, it will be quite different. That's all rather optimistic at the moment, however.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of it. But that's the thinking, at any rate.
One of the issues is trying to match transportation solutions to the problems. This idea has been around for a long time and would require building a new set of roads(guideways). Then ppl will want them all over. Roads are useful for local commutes. Instead, Money should be thrown at medium distance/medium speed solutions. Something that is > 100MPH or 150KPH. Check out highspeedmonorail.com. This was meant as a monorail for colorado that our governer fought against. It is designed to travel in the range of 100MPH - 250 MPH. This makes it useful for transport of ppl at 30-200 miles away. A 200MPH monorail is useful for cargo transport, esp, during the nights.
This is called Personal Rapid Transit, and the first PRT system in use was a "demonstration project" in Morgantown, West Virginia, funded by the U.S. Dept of Transportation. (Morgantown is the home of West Virginia University, and the system linked the WVU campus and downtown Morgantown.) It was built in the early 1970s, but I believe it is no longer operating. Subsequent to the development of the Morgantown project a similar system was developed at the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport. All of the "ultramodern" features described for the system in Cardiff were used there: variable destinations, multiple route paths, standby cars to "flex" demand, etc.
The submitter of this article makes a slight mistake in his summary: PRT, including the Cardiff system, does not envision users being able to take vehicles off the tracks. There have been rail- and rubber tire-based PRT systems proposed, but even the rubber tire-based systems are designed for a dedicated, exclusive right of way. (Several mass transit systems, notably Toronto's, use rubber tires instead of rail.)
PRT suffers from a relatively simple problem: massive capital costs. I believe what finally killed the Morgantown project was a moment of clarity at the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA, the U.S. D.O.T. agency that oversaw the project). A consultant pointed out that while the PRT system had been fun, it would have been substantially cheaper to simply buy every student and staff member of WVU a new car every two years. (My stepfather was the smart-aleck consultant.)
The Cardiff project? Three words: Big Government Boondoggle. The fundamental problem of PRT is the fundamental problem of Light Rail and Monorails too: they are dedicated right-of-way solutions that run along an extremely expensive path. (Even if the cost of construction is trivial, the cost of land acquisition is enormous. If the cost of land acquisition is NOT enormous then there isn't sufficient population density to support a fixed right-of-way system.) It is dramatically cheaper to buy buses. It is dramatically more efficient to run buses. Buses can change routes instantly--so buses that "prowl" the city center Monday through Friday can run on suburban loop routes among shopping malls on Saturday and Sunday. And a bus-based transit system only requires a marginal additional cost for right-of-way (bus stop marking, signs, shelters, etc.).
But buses don't have the sex appeal of big transit projects, so people still throw money at thirty-year-old concepts and call them "ultramodern technology."
How 'bout if we haul out the big networking technology of the time, and proclaim ARCNET as "ultramodern" networking?
Here in Phoenix, there was an initiative passed called Transit 2000. That link is now dead, but here is one that gives the information about it in more detail. Notice the cost. Notice where it is being put. I live here in Phoenix, and I honestly don't know where they plan on getting space along the roads and freeways they plan this thing to follow - it isn't there. That last site says construction is supposed to begin in 2003. I tend to doubt it. Likely the money will be pocketed by our "illustrious" government.
That is system picked. Want to see what we could have had, for far less money, had our government had more vision, and taken a chance on a proven inventor?
The SkyTran System
This is a system invented by Douglas J. Malewicki, an independent inventor.
Read about SkyTran. I am sure there are a few drawbacks, but I would say the majority of them have been seen to by Mr. Malewicki. His reasoning is sound, and fully documented.
Unfortunately I won't get to see my tax dollars go toward this system...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You are right - it isn't a new concept. Quite interesting though!
To see an example of a somewhat similar system try this link to the RUF system
One problem with Slashdotters is they don't know a lot about a lot of things... Like the French worked on such a thing from 1969 up to 1987! Bruno Latour, a French sociologist of technology, wrote about it in a book called "Aramis." You can read about it at Amazon. The reviews even say it was like packet switching. Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't understand the book, and says incorrectly that the project was "squashed by the French government." I had to read it for my doctoral exams... This is an idea that doesn't work, but since so few people know about technological failures and the basics seems easy enough, it keeps coming back. It's framed as "no one has done it, it must be cool!" instead of "no one that I know of has succeeded with this, perhaps they've all failed!" It is not the first of its kind at all, the author of the article has no idea what he's talking about.