Slashdot Mirror


Two Big Tests For Personal Rapid Transportation

Al writes "A novel kind of transit system, in which cars are replaced by a network of automated electric vehicles, is about to get its first large-scale testing and deployment. Two of these Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems are being installed this year, one at Heathrow International Airport, near London, and one in the United Arab Emirates, where it will be the primary source of transportation in Masdar City, a development that will eventually accommodate 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses and is designed to emit no carbon dioxide. The article examines these two systems and includes video that includes an animation of the PRT system in action."

32 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. This will revolutionize transportation... by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Funny

    just like the Segway did!

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:This will revolutionize transportation... by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a big plus, hacking the automated navigation on these will also revolutionize the kidnapping industry!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. What is really wrong with trains? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These pods look cute and all, but do they really do anything that trains and buses don't? The trains at SFO and SeaTac do a great job.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They leave at the second you want to leave and can probably stop exactly where you want to stop.

      Instead of trying to speed up and slow down an entire train every 1/2 mile you're only accelerating and stopping these once per passenger.

      I didn't RTFA, but the systems I've seen in the past have little 'bypasses' at each stop. You get in and punch in a destination. If you're at your destination you get off. If you're not you keep on whizzing by. It's faster so people would be more apt to use it. (You're not going to waste 3/4 of the trip slowing down and speeding up to somewhere you're not going.)

    2. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it scales up, it then can be compared to cars, not trains.

      The benefits a system like this has over cars are:
      - Vastly reduced fatalities to occupants (though perhaps pedestrians can still be struck by them)
      - Vastly reduced production resources - instead of everyone having a car, you just "call a cab"
      - Vastly reduced pollution - since you can centralize the power source, instead of having cars spewing everywhere
      - Vastly reduced parking resources - these can just roam or idle in compact storage, instead of requiring parking spots at every house and every destination
      - Vastly reduced traffic congestion - since traffic is controlled by robotic overlords
      - Get as drunk as you want while you "drive" - or alternately, work, play, etc. while you are transported

    3. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And they work all night around. A blame I hold against most mass transit systems.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by Kozz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've got no concrete info to back this up, only my gut -- but I wonder if providing small, relatively private transportation pods could backfire (as much as I would like it to succeed).

      People may feel like the pod they're currently in is "theirs". And we've seen what people do in their own cars and how they can treat them: eating, smoking, littering, f#%&ing, you name it. Then consider also what people do in/on city buses and subway systems. After a pod has been in service for the first 48 hours, will it be clean/sanitary enough that others will want to use it?

      I certainly wouldn't want to find people's stale McDonald's french fries, mysterious sticky substances on the seats, etc. At least on mass transit, you're sharing the space so there's a certain social pressure to respect others to some degree, but would this evaporate in the privacy of "your own pod"?

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    5. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A bus would use the same amount of energy to stop and let 10 people off, as it would to stop and let 1 off.

      EXACTLY. Why run an enormous diesel (or electric, or CNG) motor to move around an entire bus, if the payload that needs to be transported is only a single person?

      The PRT approach allows the energy expendicture of system to scale almost exactly with demand, albeit with a larger overhead at peak usage than traditional mass transit.

    6. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by eobanb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would imagine that a PRT system like this would work best in conjunction with other mass transit and personal transit systems, preferably integrated into one overall system. Just like the only way to replace fossil fuels is with a combination of renewable resources, the only way to really replace cars is with a combination of transit systems. On really heavy, major routes, I would think that trams/trains/buses would be the best. On lighter routes, (especially flowing out from urban to suburban areas), PRTs would be best, with dozens of small branch lines to take people within just a block or two of where they live.

      This is how cars will eventually be replaced.

      --

      Take off every sig. For great justice.

    7. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except when everything is tied to the same grid you can use one big 'battery' at the end of the line. Every time a vehicle brakes you can dump the energy back to the grid. A huge underground flywheel would be ideal. If every car tried to accelerate at once you could dump it out of the fly wheel and vice versa (just make sure you size your power lines to handle the load).

      For aerodynamic efficiency you could easily pair one or two pods together to go a long distance. If I'm going across town and there's a personal pod coming up that is going to the similar location the system could sync our vehicles up for the longest portion of the drive.

    8. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by nyctopterus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Generally, nothing. People love going on about this, but in every city I've lived in (Canberra, Sydney, Toronto, and London )the public transport has been clean. You're much more likely to run into disastrous misplacement of bodily fluids on the street.

    9. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by Spatial · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Control" and "Flying car" are mutually exclusive, I suspect. People are bad enough at driving in two dimensions, let alone three.

    10. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure; most people love driving. It has become part of the "American way" for some reason.

      But how does "liking" something compare to killing tens of thousands of people each year, causing massive destruction of ecosystems, causing other vast climactic changes, draining natural resources, and destroying watersheds (with pavement)?

      Is a little enjoyment really worth all that? Can't you go drive bumper cars or play a driving game or something?

      Heck, lots of guys enjoy having sex with lots of varied women every day. But something prevents them from grabbing the nearest hottie and having their way with her. I think it has something to do with... social responsibility.

    11. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People like having control, sure. People who are as pathological about it as you are are called control freaks. It costs more to you and to everyone around you and you acknowledge it's more dangerous to life and limb, yet you still insist on manual control of 1-2 tons of steel, including dependence on a primitive manual transmission lever you have to flip with your own hand?

      Wanting to drive for fun is one thing. Wanting to drive for control is nuts. Driving in any large metro area is nothing but an exercise in frustration anyway, if your goal is control. You're surrounded night and day by hundreds of other vehicles and you don't control a single one of them. You're forced to proceed at the pace of the vehicle in front of you and no faster, many times. You're forced to stop repeatedly at stop lights for other vehicles, or even for nothing at all, because the light will turn red regardless. Doesn't sound like you have much personal control over the experience at all, if you ask me.

      And flying cars, if they ever exist in the numbers that automobiles exist today, will be computer controlled and it will be criminally illegal to fly on manual over a metro area. Bet on it.

    12. Re:What is really wrong with trains? by russotto · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does IP do anything that Tokenring doesn't?

      Comparing a network layer protocol to a physical and data link layer one? That's good for a 6-month suspension of your geek card... turn it in, right now.

  3. "Designed to emit no carbon dioxide"? by Zondar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm assuming the system is electric, but it could only meet the "no CO2" if the electric power is nuclear, hydro, solar, etc... If it's traditional electric power, it's just moving the source of the CO2 and perhaps the efficiency.

    1. Re:"Designed to emit no carbon dioxide"? by Rolgar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why does that have to be a downfall of this system? The people that build the transportation don't have any power over what the city or power utility has decided to use for electricity any more than you or I, so it's out of their control. Is it the fault of somebody that lives in an apartment that the apartment has electricity from a coal plant instead of a wind farm since solar and wind are probably not feasible on site?

      This is a better option, because of efficiency, than other options, with a chance to being upgraded to renewable sources when it is feasible. Many places in the US already are moving toward more renewable sources, but do you expect even them to all scrap any investment they'd already made in carbon based electricity before renewables became viable options?

      Do what works but campaign for improvement in the next upgrade.

    2. Re:"Designed to emit no carbon dioxide"? by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i think the gist is that being electric, the vehicles are therefore power-source agnostic, in terms of it being easy to get the power from renewable sources. You can just change the input and the output is fixed. With gasoline powered cars, thats not the case.

      --
      DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  4. Heathrow by lelitsch · · Score: 4, Funny

    Oh the delicious irony of using "Heathrow" and "rapid transit" in the same sentence.

    1. Re:Heathrow by drsquare · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'd be surprised how rapidly your baggage ends up 5,000 miles away from your destination.

  5. Good idea, but... by Reason58 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems as if something like this would attract vagrants, significant vandalism and just plain disgustingness. Would be pretty cool though if major cities were only filled with people like the scientists and engineers would designed it.

    1. Re:Good idea, but... by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It seems as if something like this would attract vagrants, significant vandalism and just plain disgustingness. Would be pretty cool though if major cities were only filled with people like the scientists and engineers would designed it.

      I don't know the particulars of this system but I can make a couple of assumptions on how this can be handled.

      1. You pay for your trip via credit card.
      2. A vehicle arrives for your use. If it is unsanitary, you press a button and it routes back to maintenance for cleaning.
      3. Any vehicle flagged for maintenance will have its passenger log reviewed. Any passenger racks up 3 sanitary flaggings by passengers using the vehicle after him will be banned from the service for a month.

      I'm less enthusiastic about putting video cameras in the cab to directly record vandalism, it could just as easily be abused as any other reasonable control people think of, but I think the flagging system should be relatively abuse-resistant. And I'd feel very pleased to see punks suffering the consequences of their actions. I for one am sick of going into a nice business and seeing the restrooms vandalized by stupid rich white kids who think they're ghetto because they listen to M&M.

      --
      Kwisatz Haderach
      Sell the spice to CHOAM
      This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    2. Re:Good idea, but... by characterZer0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bonus: You get to track exactly where everybody goes.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
  6. where's mr. pointy? by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Funny

    So an entire community that emits no carbon dioxide. What are the inhabitants, vampires? Zombies? Undead "not otherwise specified"? This "green movement" is getting out of control when we turn to the dark powers.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  7. I wonder in 20 years... by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder in 20 years how these "networks" will compare to the Morgantown PRT.

    1. Re:I wonder in 20 years... by AndrewNeo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The article (yes, I actually read it) actually compares the system to Morgantown's and why it should work better.

  8. What's the Point? by lobiusmoop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Individual transport within an airport - an environment designed round mass transport?

    The Heathrow video claims '50% lower carbon emissions than buses or trains' - is that per passenger though? In a busy airport like Heathrow regular trains would be more efficient than individual transporters surely.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  9. interesting concept by jollyreaper · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm still a big fan of skytran. I don't know if the political and financial support is there but the economics seem reasonable and I think it's certainly an engineering possibility, not relying on unobtanium or anything wild.

    The link to the website goes into far greater detail but the nickel synopsis is this:

    1. Two passenger monorail cars using a computerized rail system to rapidly route passengers to destinations, avoiding the stop and start of traditional subway and light rail. (Monorail, yes monorail! Your simspon reference is weak, shut up.)
    2. Cars, rails and towers are designed to be light so the footprint on the ground is about the same as a telephone pole.
    3. With all the rails in the air, real estate on the ground can be used for pretty much anything, avoiding the disruptive problems and huge expense of running traditional light rail lines.
    4. Because the lines are cheaper, a grid can be laid over a sprawling metropolitan area lacking the high population densities required to make traditional mass transit viable.
    5. The goal is to have stops spread about everywhere so that where you want to go should be no more than a 15 minute walk after arrival. Current mass transit can leave you with miles to go to your destination.
    6. Since the cars are electric and make no more than a whooshing line when going overhead, they would not be as disruptive as a conventional light rail train or a city bus.

    The goal with skytran is not to replace cars but to take commuters off the road. Anyone as a single occupant in a car going places could be in one of these and free up the roads for people whose trips cannot be accomplished via skytran.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTran

    Of course, the real problem we're looking at here is that zero thought has been put into sustainable urban planning. We tend to ad hoc and half-ass everything together and end up with designs that are simply unworkable. But hey, that's the human way. Maybe the energy crunch can force a reevaluation of that.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  10. Rumpty tumpty time by jonnyj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We almost bought one of these systems in Cardiff, Wales a few years back. Then the local press started speculating that the pods would be a great place for couples to indulge themselves on the way home from the pub. Thoughts of grafitti-covered pods full of condoms, used syringes and vomit killed the scheme dead in its tracks.

    This might be OK in an airport. In an inner city it would be a disaster.

  11. A 40+ year old pipe dream by migurski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    PRT's are not novel, they've been an engineering pipe dream for at least 60 years. There was a similar design effort in the 1970s in Paris that was the subject of an excellent book by Bruno Latour called Aramis. TFA says that PRT have been previous unworkable for "a variety of reasons, including the cost of the initial systems and the difficulty of integrating them into existing cities". The Paris project got all the way to physical prototypes, built sections of track, etc., and one of Latour's conclusions is that the PRT concept is itself unworkable. It lives in an inflexible no man's land between private vehicles and mass transit: passengers can't go where they want because the system has tracks and shared "pods", and engineers can't scale it how they want because the vehicles don't have flexible open space inside to cram in more passengers during busy times. Lose-lose, all around.

  12. Simple by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One big train or bus logically can only come by every so many minutes. You don't want to wait 15 minutes. Plus it can only follow a specific route.

    For example, my office is 10 minutes away by car. Yet if I were to ride the bus that goes there it would take 1.5 HOURS because first I have to wait 15 minutes for it to show up, then I have to ride downtown to a central station, wait another 15 minutes for the bus going to where I want to go, and then ride that bus. All the way these buses are starting and stopping and go maybe overall 1/2 the speed of a car.

    I don't have 1.5 hours of free time to spend commuting. Judging by the ridership, nobody else that is gainfully employed does either.

    Now, if we had say smart electric taxis that would show up when I need my ride and go directly there at speed, it would be basically a no-brainer. I'd be on it in 5 seconds. Even if it DID go half as fast as a normal car, so what? I can live with 20 mins if it will save me money. I might even do it if it cost the same.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    1. Re:Simple by dasunt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For example, my office is 10 minutes away by car. Yet if I were to ride the bus that goes there it would take 1.5 HOURS because first I have to wait 15 minutes for it to show up, then I have to ride downtown to a central station, wait another 15 minutes for the bus going to where I want to go, and then ride that bus. All the way these buses are starting and stopping and go maybe overall 1/2 the speed of a car.

      I don't have 1.5 hours of free time to spend commuting. Judging by the ridership, nobody else that is gainfully employed does either.

      It's called a bicycle. Get some fenders, a good lock, and add a pannier or two for your work clothes.

      Travel slowly so you don't sweat (say around 10mph or so).

      If your office is 10 minutes away by car, odds are it is within two or three miles, should be easy to reach it within 20 minutes or so.