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!"
I'm v.pleased to see from the photo that they will allow bikes to be taken aboard.
The combination of bike and public transport is perfect for me and many others.
Hogsback
So... you swipe a card, punch in a destination, and suddenly they have a very neat record of where you've gone using public transportation. Nice.
Aside from that, it's an interesting idea; you don't necessarily have the hassle of figuring out bus schedules. And you don't have to deal with a cab driver who barely speaks English and is quite willing to drive you around New York for two hours because you don't know that your destination is really only a fifteen-minute drive from the airport. So in that sense, it's nice.
I especially appreciated the photo that shows a bike will easily fit into these vehicles... good call! Heck, that means fitting a Segway in there would be pretty easy...
People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
.. is that the people constructing these tracks don't have a large enough supply of "curved" sections of track, and always have plenty of "straight" sections of track. Thus, they keep having to go back to Toys R Us to buy more "curvy" tracks...
This is really the self driving cars question, taken from the oppisite approach.
I still think that the best way to tackle this would be a solution that relies as little as possible on things built into the ground. It's 2002, and we have fast computers and fairly accurate GPS guidance. I don't see any reason why the earth part of the system should be more than stipes of whatever color reflective paint on the ground. It's easy and cheap, and it won't ever need upgrading. Then car computer guides itself with the paint lines, but uses GPS to ditermine it's location and to make decisions about turning and stuff. Maybe some kind of WAP based thing where cars close to each other share location and velocity information. Of course, this all comes in a box under the hood with a couple cables sticking out. The WAP could accept software upgrades, and if new hardware is neccessary than you just have to take all the cars to the shop rather than dig in half your roads.
beats circut switched traffic any day. now i see why this is on /.
"i was saying gnu-rd"
Back in my freshman year in college, I proposed and worked on a very similar transportation system, called HSTS (High Speed Transit System). Other engineering students collaborated with it as well. We even had a student code a Java applet that simulated the whole thing. The biggest problem we found was what would happen if the cars were going really fast, and the power suddenly went off... We used the term "Mass Death". :^)
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Instead of installing some corrider-constrained, incredibly expensive Mag-Lev system of dubious value which does nothing to address the nightmare of getting from neighborhood to neighborhood in this tangle of hills, gullies and twisty streets they call a City, they could use existing arterials (supplimented perhaps with a couple of new ones) to *greatly* expand the reach of public transportion and make it practical to ditch the now-mandatory two-car-per-family lifestyle.
Phew, feels good to get that off my chest...
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.
Places like North America that already have a huge transportation infrastructure would find it expensive to implement one of these, good to see that some European countries are testing them out now.
I dont know about some of you, but I hate driving. I'd much rather have an automated transport that could take me where I need to go without having to deal with Metro transit and all the crazies on the bus.
> Nothing beats the freedom of hopping into my car, when I want to and not waiting for public transportation, on their schedule
... yadda yadda. Yes, I'm pragmatic, but it bothers me when people are quick to shoot down new ideas because they're too damn lazy/comfortable with what they already have.
... and as it stands, once you get out on the road, it's You vs Them. But Them are your friends and neighbours once you get outta the car ..
Nothing beats having what I want, when I want, for how much I want it! Seriously, thats the kind of selfish approach that inhibits the adoption of technologies that would make the world better for people less fortunate than you; nevermind the evironment, noise pollution
With western technology and population desities being what they are, people have the ability to isolate themselves via technology. Cars are an excellent example. Think of how many people, in your city, go from one 4 block arena to the exact same 4 block area somewhere else. Think of how efficient it would be to co-ordinate and co-operate with them! But alas, you're already spoiled
"Old man yells at systemd"
Despite what anyone says, nothing can beat Springfield's Monorail...
Lyle Lanley:
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?
Ned Flanders: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!
[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: Once again...
All: Monorail!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
[big finish]
Monorail!
Homer: Mono... D'oh!
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
What kind of volume will it handle? From the looks of the things you'll need almost as many of those little driverless cabs as you do cars in a given urban area. That's going to cost! So what do we do to pay for the system, give up our cars and contribute the money that we spend on them to this system? Then what are we supposed to do if we want/need to travel outside the area serviced by this or other public transit systems? Ride our bikes? What if it's 300 miles away? Pouring rain? I don't think so Vern! I'm sorry but while it's a good attempt at replacing the automobile, it has a ways to go before it replaces the automobile's freedomof movement that our society's become accustomed to to the point of being dependant on it.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Americans tend to take a very negative view of public transportation. Part of this is due to the fact that it's public, and the public includes people who are drunk, abusive, and smell bad. People you would never ride with by choice. Even though they make up a small minority of the bus- and subway-riding public, they're enough to spoil the experience and make one not want to ride public transportation.
These transport pods look like they'd eliminate most of that problem, as they're small enough one could travel alone or with a small group of one's own choosing.
The dedicated track part could still be a problem. Americans like to go where they want, when they want (doesn't everyone) and with the ready availability of (polluting, road-clogging) cars, I don't see them opting for any track-based transport system in the near future. Americans also take a kind of pride in their vehicles (witness the huge number of heavy, expensive, rollover-prone "off-road" vehicles that have never been off a road). Maybe this kind of thing will work in Cardiff, but to really make an impact on the environment, petroleum industry etc., one needs a system that will work in the U.S. Where the cars are.
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!
I find it interesting that we keep proposing (and implementing) systems that are really quite "space age" whatever that means, but the actual face of the world doesn't seem to change that much. This is such a fascinating idea, and one that I think has quite a bit of merrit. The only problem that I see is that of mixing this and regular traffic. I don't want to be trapped inside one of these little boxes toodling allong at a leisurly 25mph and have some jackass with his suv and cellphone run over me doing 50. I know the solution described in the article runs on a special track, but for a mass transit solution to work and gain wide use in anything but the largest cities, it has to share the infrastructure with regualr vehicles, otherwise it is often prohibitively expensive.
I know that mass transit works, but it works best in very dense population centers, because it is limited to specific routes. What if only one of your destination endpoints is near a mass transit station. Then you either have to walk or drive to the terminal. That works durring summer, or if you live in a warm dry climate, but right now I have to think twice about walking across the parkinglot to get my car it is so cold outside. I guess my point is that mass transportation needs to be nearly door to door or it will not gain wide acceptance.
When I want your opinion I will beat it out of you.
Err Cardiff has been there quite a bit longer than either NewYork or LA. Of course it can be done if the city wants it to be done.
The Underground in London probably got a similar response when they first built it. Then they built one in Paris and the rest is history.
Cardiff isn't a new town, which is why it has problems, it was started a long long time before cars and hence it needs new solutions as its not been built for cars ala NewYork and LA.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
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 real problem is going to be pissed people on the way back from the pub throwing up in it.
If yer in a taxi they can hit you lots until you clear it up any pay for cleaning.
On a bus, well sort of the same.
Can you imagine getting aboard one of this and smelling a 2 hour old pool of vomit?
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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.
With the demise of netvan and the undesirability of purchasing a car solely to go to the grocery store I, for one, would find a mass transit system that would drop me off at my front curb very useful. Add to that the fact that getting a cab at my local food store is next to impossible (while finding one 6 blocks away is easy, go figure), and the physical challenges (read:impossibility) of carrying 15 bags of groceries on foot, and even the most casual, non-knee-jerk-cynical observer can see the usefulness of such a system.
... making traffic a little worse in the short run might be just the kind of incentive that would help speed adoption of such a system.
As for it being "out of the question" that such could track systems could be laid down in a major city, don't be absurd (not you, but another poster in this thread). Major cities are exactly where this kind of thing would be most useful. Like Europe, they could be integrated into the existing streetplans a la streetcars. If the traffic implications are too significant (possible during the installation and early use, likely the opposite once such a system were adopted widely) they could be built on an elevated track. Personally, I'd just take lanes away from old-style cars
Of course, entrenched interests such as automobile manufacturers and taxi drivers are likely to raise a stink and do everything they can to slow adoption of such a system, but that sort of thing should be resisted and fought, not pandered to. Alas, in an age where the government spends more time and money trying to preserve the business models of buggie whip manufacturers (c.f RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, SSSCA, Copyright extentions, etc.) rather than promoting the adoption of new technologies and the new capabilities they promise (c.f. universally accessible, virtually cost-free libraries, free sharing of information, etc.) the future we face, at least in the short term, is not an optomistic one at all.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
- 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"
My favorite link for this sort of thing is this PRT page. (And on a side note, I think hanging the cars makes more sense than riding on top of the rails). It's a good idea but it will take some getting used to, and will require mass-production to become truly cheap.
A finite resource will always be completely consumed so long as there are no limitations on the consumption of that resource. A resource in short supply becomes expensive, while a resource in good supply becomes cheap, and a resource in oversupply is still snapped up by anyone who thinks they can use it.
This is true of transportation as well. No matter how much road you build, someone will always find a way to use it. The only limiting factor is that people don't like to travel for more than an hour. When highways are built suburbia springs up around them. When the Long Island Railroad was built, the areas around the stations w/in an hour's travel quickly became heavily developed. Building roads does not make travel easier - it just enables more of it. Thus the most important factor in a transportation system is not how much it can carry, but how well it performs at peak capacity. Railroads, and presumably PRT, may become crowded the traffic continues to flow. But auto roads perform miserably above a certain traffic level - some sort of breakdown always occurs and brings huge chunks of the system to a standstill.
The first key to making PRT a reality is to make it effective enough and cheap enough to allow near door-to-door travel as fast or faster than cars. If people have to take a car to get to the PRT station, they will figure that they might as well drive all the way to their destination. The second key is to make the system strong and flexible enough to allow changes in how it is used (like cargo transport, and automatic delivery).
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
So do a lot of places, like the Atlanta-Hartsfield Airport (ATL) and Tampa International Airport (TPA) terminal transportation systems. Hell, the entire U-Bahn in Germany is automatically controlled, with the "conductors" or "engineers" or "drivers" or whatever the hell they are only there for safety and in case of emergency.
Unfortunately, this system idea is a bit more complex: The dozens of paths and crossings on each line of the Munich U-Bahn system are still nothing compared with the complexity of a 20-square-block street area, much less the implementation for an entire town or even subdivision.
Nice idea, but reality says, "No dice." People want cars, even when they're expensive to own, operate and maintain. They're convenient (except for parking), can be personalised/customised, and they're private.
woof.
Screw this system --I want the flying cars they promised me when I was a kid!
Sorry I am late for work, the traffic router was flapping and I ended up in Cleveland.
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
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
I've considered the population density argument in the past, and still think it's a red herring--even you agree that public transport makes good sense in cities.
But how big does a city need to be to have an effective transportation system? Sure, Chicago and New York are (apparently) excellent. So is the Bay Area. LA's system isn't that great, though--certainly not for an urban area of its size and population. I lived in San Diego for two years, and their transit system would be an embarassment for a city 1/3 the size! Boulder, the 'pride and joy of alternate transportation,' has a decent system. Not great, but decent.
Note that all of these comparisons are based on the opinion of a Canadian--not of a European.
I think that the biggest reason public transit won't work in the US is that people don't _want_ it to work (and don't want to put money into it, and...); and the biggest reason that people don't want it to work is that they're put off by the current, dysfunctional systems.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Vandal-proof my ass. At least in the US the punks will have those windows etched in no time.
sulli
RTFJ.
All of these have a disadvantage, but it is a system that exists now in most European cities. Even some UK cities are reintroducing the tram now.
However what really makes it work in Europe is the integrated transport policy which links the different types of public transport together.
What is discussed here is a blue sky project for te distant future. It may be created in some new purpose-built 'city' like Milton Keynes, but otherwise creating that network of lines would be a nightmare.
Just using a mixture of conventional public transport technologies can reduce road loading by an incredible degree. Having a policy of integration means that I can use different types as a simple way of getting from A to B.
Here in Germany, I can hit the web site of the transport system (it is also in English so have a look) and it can give me the right mixture of trains/trams/metro/buses to get between A and B throughout the region.
This isn't rocket science, but perhaps if we could drag the UK's tansport system to the level of other major European countries, then we can start to look at more radical technologies.
See my journal, I write things there
Future versions may have dual control to allow people to drive the cars from the nearest station off the track to their homes.
Now that's something I could buy into. Public transport is great and all, but the problem has always been (at least in the US) that once you get to your stop, there's still quite a ways to go. Also, Americans in general just plain and simple don't want to give up the mobility of having a car.
Personally, I live near Atlanta, GA. We have the MARTA trains to move you through the city. The only problem is, the city is huge, and MARTA has maybe a couple of dozen stops thorughout the city, and it doesn't even span out to where I live. The result is if I were to take the MARTA anywhere, I'd still end up travelling 2-5 miles, sometimes more, to my final destination. That's just plain useless.
Being able to drive your car onto a public transportation grid that would take control and send you whisking off to whatever exit you chose would be great. I don't know how it would handle tremendous volumes, but if they can get the process down pat I would be one of it's biggest supporters.
~ now you know
Why to you is it?
{begin rant} Simple (at least for me) -- SUVs excessively threaten me as the driver of a normal vehicle.
How?:
1. excessive weight and energy -- my car is 3000 lbs gross, while a suburban is 8600 lbs (http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/engine_sub/8100 .htm). So, the suburban is carrying more than double the energy in a collision.
2. high bumpers, which conveniently miss most of the crumple zone of my vehicle, magnifying the hazard of the excess weight of the SUV.
3. poor handling relative to a normal vehicle, which increases the chance of a collision.
4. SUV drivers with no clue as to how to handle these limitations.
5. the fat, tall, and opaque behind of an SUV blocks my view of potential trouble ahead.
6. I observe that SUV drivers are more prone to poor driving -- Left Lane Banditry (failing to keep right except to pass), and wandering all over the road whilst Driving While Yakking/shaving/reading/disciplining their rug rats.
I would mitigate these hazards as follows:
1. SUV speed limit is 80% of the posted limit (limit 70 mph -> SUV limit of 56), which reduces the crash energy by 36% (one half m v squared.) Ban SUVs from the passing and HOV lanes.
2. tax SUV owners on a per mile driven and per pound basis, to compensate for the increased wear on the road. Heck, tax all drivers this way.
3. SUV owners pay $2000/year/SUV into a SUV victims fund.
4. remove the business tax preferences to SUVs.
{end rant}
Ok, so I'm dreaming. Sue me.
It's Linux, damnit! Pay no attention to renaming attempts by self-aggrandizing blowhards.
It also solves the problem of the stations not being nearby - just drive your car to the on ramp, sit back and enjoy the ride. Until the exit comes and you have to wake up, of course.
Was that out loud?
That is an incorrect assumption! The benefits of a well designed and implemented mass transit system are much more far reaching than solely to the individuals actually using the system.
And just where might this system be?
The only and best known cases of mass transit that work are the ones where there is absolutely no other choice that can be made. For example, access to downtown New York City is impractical in most motor vehicles. The transportation models for motor vehicles don't scale to that density. Everyone uses public transportation not because they want to but because nothing else works. But I live on a farm, not New York City. Their solutions don't scale to me either.
And also, before you continue on your anti-SUV line of rant, consider what vehicle options a family of five should use: No, I don't have enough room in an econo-box for my wife, an aging mother in law, and two small children in child safety seats. Our alternatives are 1) two cars, 2) a minivan, 3) a large sedan or station wagon, or 4) an SUV.
Options 2, and 3 have similar efficiencies. Option 4 is only slightly worse, Option 1 is simply impractical. Just so you know, my wife and I chose option 3.
Believe me, I'd drive a smaller vehicle in an instant if I thought it were feasible. But it ain't gonna happen for many years. Neither is it likely that I'll see any form of public transportation out where I live.
You talk about squandering natural resources. Ever study what it takes to run a city? Ever really wonder whether there truly is an economy of scale there? Well, I suspect you won't like the answer.
Before you go green with stupidity, think. Think about how mass transit works when you're carting around three or more dependents. Think about what a mass transit system is supposed to do during off-peak hours. Yes, cities may have economies of scale, but they also have the overhead of distribution systems. And if that's not enough, think about failure modes.
Clearly the guys who wrote the article believe in autopilots. That's nice. Do you trust your neighbor to maintain this autopilot so that it won't fail catastrophically? How about the instrumentation that feeds it? Clearly when even one such control system goes wrong the consequences are far greater than if just one idiot runs a red light.
Don't think you can coerce your neighbors to use what you use. Successful systems work because they appeal to everyone. SUVs appeal to many families because there really isn't anything with the safety and capacity that these things have. Yes, I'd like economy too. But which features do you think are more popular?
Enjoy your nice haven in the city. Just remember what supports it, and remember that yours isn't the one and only way of life.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
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.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
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
Yes, I know that for the typical cost of a mass transit system, you could have bought every regular rider at least one new luxury car. But:
1) How was the cost of building the roads factored in? Not fair to compare the cost of a new railbed to just stuffing more traffic into existing roads... I'm not sure about this, but it would seem like a mile of dual-track railbed built only heavy enough for car-like vehicles should cost less than a mile of four-lane road, and (with central control) would handle more traffic.
2) I'd think the cars for one of these systems would actually be a little simpler than an automobile built for independent operation. Electric motor instead of that horribly complex gasoline engine and transmission. Simpler suspension, because you can count on the rails meeting certain standards for smoothness, and no steering. Lots of electronics, but that's cheap nowadays. So if the cars were built in sufficient quantity, they'd cost the same or less as autos.
Of course, the trouble is that autos are built by the millions, but trams are custom-built. Could you design the trams to use an existing car body, just drop an electric motor under the hood, leave out the steering, and change the wheels?
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.