# The return of narrow gauge.... on your street?



## SlateCreek (Jan 2, 2008)

Went looking for streetside photos of small railroad depots for a project I'm working on for the Slate Creek. 

Google got a bit confused .... 

What it came up with was this: 

http://www.prtproject.com/index.html 

Somehow it tends to set off the George Orwell alarm in me, but it's an interesting approach nonetheless! 

Matthew (OV)


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

'Personal Rapid Transit' (individual cars on a railway system) has been brought up a time or three on the oil board I post at. 

It is also a complete flop. Complaints range from circuitious routes to the amount of space required for the stations and tracks to the severe difficulty of implimenting the computer routing system. A number of demo projects have been attempted; all went massively over budget, all were deemed failures.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

No "private" vehicles???? NO WAY "I" could use the vehicle just exited by someone that decided to have a smoke while riding... or the one some kid (or drunk adult) just barfed (or worse) in.


----------



## Josef Rieder (Jan 18, 2008)

Do they make steam powered versions?


----------



## Josef Rieder (Jan 18, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 05/21/2008 12:15 AM
No "private" vehicles???? NO WAY "I" could use the vehicle just exited by someone that decided to have a smoke while riding... or the one some kid (or drunk adult) just barfed (or worse) in.



Hehehe...ride BART or MUNI in San Francisco and that just may happen to you, it has to me./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Didn't they have something like this in the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper" 35 years ago? 

Maybe neurotic robot butlers are not far behind?


----------



## cmjdisanto (Jan 6, 2008)

Personally I'd be more receptive to the use of a center lane of the major streets and thoroughfares for the laying of rail than that./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/crazy.gif The convenience thing is what has gotten us into and keeps us in trouble./DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif Personally I have difficulty walking and it would be impossible to carry groceries/whatever the 5 blocks from a rail/trolley stop to the house but that would probably be more realistic than a personal rail car. Great to see folks thinking though. Unfortunately there's not much thought since all they have to do is look towards the past and find the solution. If that's not possible there is the train you see in the really old Gumby episodes. Remember it? The train layed the track in the front and it then dissappeared as it went over it?/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/blink.gif That sounds more feasable than the PRT. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif 

Here's an Orwellian thought.....That picture of the Home Depot? In the future their sign is just four letters "less" than what they may become. This price crap is gonna force those places to shift from home improvement centers to just Centers for......../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif


----------



## markoles (Jan 2, 2008)

Joe, 

Isn't there an abandonded rail bed in your back yard? Why not advocate light rail along that? Then, you wouldn't have to walk 5 blocks, and you could also build your own shelter, possibly even covered walkway from your back door! Subsidize it by charging your neighbors a toll to cross your property under cover! 


As far as that system goes, it would be fine for an individual commuting to work. What about families? I don't see that as a good mode for a mom with a kid and all the stuff she's likely to have (stroller, diaper bag, kid carrier, purse!). Just seems that it would only work for a specific type of traveler. Plus, all those rails in the ground, how are we going to get our road bikes through that? I would assume the vehicles would be smart type and would stop when pedestrians crossed the tracks, but removing that kind of human control would really scare me. I guess I prefer the risk of having a human behind the controls. 

Mark


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2008)

all those rails in the ground, how are we going to get our road bikes through that?


maybe like we did as kids? by crossing at an angle and by basicly look out for ourselves?


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

And just who's gonna pay to rip up the streets and lay track? Better chance of outlawing gas cars in leiu of electric cars than this ever flying. 

This is a complete boondoggle intended to seperate investors from their bank accounts IMHO.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By cmjdisanto on 05/21/2008 6:00 AM

Here's an Orwellian thought.....That picture of the Home Depot? In the future their sign is just four letters "less" than what they may become. This price crap is gonna force those places to shift from home improvement centers to just Centers for......../DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/whistling.gif" border=0>" border=0>




For the scoops to make drop offs for Soylent Green production?


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2008)

For the scoops to make drop offs for Soylent Green production?

soylent green can be only a very temporary solution. 
if once the water is extracted from the "rawmaterial", there are about 40 to 60 pound of material left. 
that feeds one human for about a month. 
so population would shrink to less than one tenth within a year.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By kormsen on 05/21/2008 8:59 PM
For the scoops to make drop offs for Soylent Green production?

soylent green can be only a very temporary solution. 
if once the water is extracted from the "rawmaterial", there are about 40 to 60 pound of material left. 
that feeds one human for about a month. 
so population would shrink to less than one tenth within a year.




It is a bit faster than that... 

The present population of the earth RIGHT NOW is... 

6,669,207,116 people. 

according to: http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html at the moment I checked (It goes up about 15 every 5 seconds.) 

So for the next month 1/2 of them are food for the other half, leaving 3,334,603,559 people with full tummys. 

Half of that 3,334,603,558 feeds the other half in the 2nd month. 

Half of the remaining 1,667,301,779 feed the other half in the 3rd month. 

Half of the remaining 833,650,889 feed the other half in the 4th month. 
(The population has shrunk by about 10 percent of the original about here.) 
Half of the remaining 416,825,444 feed the other half in the 5th month. 

Half of the remaining 208,412,722 feed the other half in the 6th month. 

Half of the remaining 104,206,361 feed the other half in the 7th month. 
(The population has shrunk to about 10 percent of the original about here.) 
Half of the remaining 52,103,180 feed the other half in the 8th month. 

Half of the remaining 26,051,590 feed the other half in the 9th month. 

Half of the remaining 13,025,795 feed the other half in the 10th month. 

Half of the remaining 6,512,897 feed the other half in the 11th month. 

Half of the remaining 3,256,448 feed other half in the 12 month. 

At the end of 1 year the population of the earth would be 1,628,224 (of the original 6,669,207,117) which is 0.024 percent. 

Of course that assumes their are no more births. 

If we assume the present birth rate then the following table results: 

Month Population 
1---	6,669,213,017 (I re-checked the number!) 
2---	3,360,958,509 
3---	1,680,479,254 
4---	840,239,627 
5---	420,119,814 
6---	210,059,907 
7---	105,029,953 
8---	52,514,977 
9---	26,257,488 
10--	13,128,744 
11--	6,564,372 
12--	3,282,186 
13--	1,641,093 
14--	820,547 
15--	410,273 
16--	205,137 
17--	102,568 
18--	51,284 
19--	25,642 
20--	12,821 
21--	6,411 
22--	3,205 
23--	1,603 
24--	801 
25--	401 
26--	200 
27--	100 
28--	50 
29--	25 
30--	13 
31--	6 
32--	3 
33--	2 
34--	I'm hungry!


----------



## Guest (May 22, 2008)

your math is way out over my head. 
but lets say, in the 33rd, you and i will turn vegetarian? 
running trains all alone, without anybody, to show off to, would be boring.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't remember who said this, but I think it will apply here... 

"I am not a vegetarian because I love animals... I am a vegetarian because I hate vegetables!"


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Interesting discussion! I particularly like it since it's my website that Matthew found via google. I'd like to respond to some of the comments... 

Matthew: "Somehow it tends to set off the George Orwell alarm in me" 

I fully understand. Clearly it's a technology with potential for abuse...just like nuclear energy, the internet, and so on. The website intentionally focuses on the engineering aspects rather than the social ones. PRT or not, we clearly need to vote wisely and improve democracy if we are to avoid Orwell's scenario. 

ThinkerT: "It is also a complete flop." 

So far. But that doesn't prove it can't work. Technology has changed radically since the first PRT proposals. And new factors are in play...climate change, energy shortages, gridlock, are requiring us to rethink transportation. My PRT premise differs from past proposals in that the goal is the REPLACE the automobile, not coexist. It takes over the roadways rather than building costly elevated skyways. It's a very radical idea, but we live in radical times. Besides...does anyone on this blog really think humans will still be in the drivers seat 500 years from now? What about 100 years? My contention is that the technology is such that we can do it now. 

Semper: "No "private" vehicles???? NO WAY "I" could use the vehicle just exited by someone that decided to have a smoke while riding... or the one some kid (or drunk adult) just barfed (or worse) in." 

That's an easy one. Just like a city bus, no smoking would be allowed. And obviously if a vehicle is taken out of service due to barf, another one would replace it. 

Josef: "Do they make steam powered versions?" 

Glad you ask. The vehicles are entirely electric...much more efficient than ANY combustion system. The vehicles would use an electrified 3rd rail, with a small battery for getting past unelectrified sections. The electricity would most likely come from a variety of sources, but I suspect mostly nuclear. If you don't like nuclear, think of it this way...iit's whatever energy source makes the most sense, as long as it can produce electricity. 

cmjdisanto: "Personally I have difficulty walking and it would be impossible to carry groceries/whatever the 5 blocks from a rail/trolley stop to the house" 

As I said this system would replace the automobile, so it would pick you up in front of your house. This includes children, elderly, and handicapped people since they don't drive the vehicles. 

mark: "As far as that system goes, it would be fine for an individual commuting to work. What about families? I don't see that as a good mode for a mom with a kid and all the stuff she's likely to have (stroller, diaper bag, kid carrier, purse!)." 

Actually it's perfect for mom & kids. Mom can easily bring along the stroller, etc. And mom won't be distracted by the kids. And later on mom can send the kids to soccer practice by themselves if she likes. 

Plus, all those rails in the ground, how are we going to get our road bikes through that? 

For several engineering reasons the rails are NOT embedded into the ground, so bicycles would cross at key points where the surrounding surface is raised to track level for easy crossing. 

"removing that kind of human control would really scare me." 

The safety of a computer controlled system only increases. Human drivers on the other hand continue to drive drunk, get distracted by cell phones, kids, etc. So even if you don't believe computers are not as reliable as us, our days of superiority must surely be numbered. 

vsmith: "And just who's gonna pay to rip up the streets and lay track?" 

The cost of maintaining the existing asphalt roadways is gigantic. A rail system requires much less maintenance. And just to be clear, the tracks are mounted atop the road surfaces, so you don't rip up the streets. This is detailed on the website. 

gary 
http://www.prtproject.com


----------



## paceway (Jan 3, 2008)

Gary, 

I just read your entire web site, and I must say it is nicely done. I was doing OK with the idea until I got to the words "intelligent legislation" the bells rang and the whistle blew... 

Well thought out but the theroy has a lot of holes in it. 

It all boiles down to "They will get my car when they pry the keys from my cold dead hand".


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By paceway on 05/23/2008 8:45 PM
Gary, 
I just read your entire web site, and I must say it is nicely done. I was doing OK with the idea until I got to the words "intelligent legislation" the bells rang and the whistle blew... 

As I mentioned above, my focus is on the engineering aspects, not the political ones. The latter are far too complicated...





Well thought out but the theroy has a lot of holes in it.

Like what?





It all boiles down to "They will get my car when they pry the keys from my cold dead hand".


I've certainly heard that one before. I like to drive as well, but not in traffic or even in town. But a drive in the country would be something we wouldn't want to lose. And coincidentially that's where public transportation doesn't work well anyway. 

I suspect people a mere hundred years back said things like "They will get my horse when they pry the saddle out of my cold dead hands."



gary


----------



## paceway (Jan 3, 2008)

Gary, 


As you said the idea is well thought out, from an engineering standpoint. From a social stand point I have a few problems. First of all our government, though it is by far the best in the world, is not known for being able to operate anything without screwing it up. They are so busy keeping there asses in office they are not paying attention to what is good for the American people, or what the people want. 

Can you imagine what will happen when one government authority controls your transportation needs. Your freedom will be gone. One of the great ideas of a free democracy is that you can go where when you want. 

A few holes in the engineering... There four million trucks in this country delivering the goods we use daily, what about them? What is going to happen to the system when you load forty thousand pounds of freight on it, or have to deliver a hundred thousand pound piece of bridge to a construction site? 

What about an emergency vehicle, how do they get around traffic? Are they going to have to wait in line on the track for the line to clear? 

I think you have under estimated the volume of traffic during rush hours. Example, one million people need to get to work by nine A.M. If they car pool and ride two to a car that's half a million trips to town. If the trip is fifteen miles @ forty-five MPH that's .33 hrs each trip times half a million trips… that’ kind of scary. Then there is the problem of what are you going to do with half a million cars during the day when they are not in use. 

The dept. of transportation once tried to stop all trucks from running overnight. The plan never got going because they couldn’t figure out where to park four million trucks. 
Our freedoms in this country are under assault today like never before, in my opinion, and the government is going toward fascism more and more. Weed less government not more. They will just screw it up anyways. 

I think your plan has many merits and should be considered for small-dedicated communities or villages. If done on a community-by-community basis it could work. People would have a choice to opt out of the program by relocating somewhere else. 

My opinion is obviously more politically then technology based but remember that the best technology in the world that is not acceptable to the user will not be sold…


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By paceway on 05/24/2008 7:52 AM 
Gary, 
As you said the idea is well thought out, from an engineering standpoint. From a social stand point I have a few problems. First of all our government, though it is by far the best in the world, is not known for being able to operate anything without screwing it up. They are so busy keeping there asses in office they are not paying attention to what is good for the American people, or what the people want. 
Can you imagine what will happen when one government authority controls your transportation needs. Your freedom will be gone. One of the great ideas of a free democracy is that you can go where when you want. 
A few holes in the engineering... There four million trucks in this country delivering the goods we use daily, what about them? What is going to happen to the system when you load forty thousand pounds of freight on it, or have to deliver a hundred thousand pound piece of bridge to a construction site? 
What about an emergency vehicle, how do they get around traffic? Are they going to have to wait in line on the track for the line to clear? 
I think you have under estimated the volume of traffic during rush hours. Example, one million people need to get to work by nine A.M. If they car pool and ride two to a car that's half a million trips to town. If the trip is fifteen miles @ forty-five MPH that's .33 hrs each trip times half a million trips… that’ kind of scary. Then there is the problem of what are you going to do with half a million cars during the day when they are not in use. 
The dept. of transportation once tried to stop all trucks from running overnight. The plan never got going because they couldn’t figure out where to park four million trucks. 
Our freedoms in this country are under assault today like never before, in my opinion, and the government is going toward fascism more and more. Weed less government not more. They will just screw it up anyways. 
I think your plan has many merits and should be considered for small-dedicated communities or villages. If done on a community-by-community basis it could work. People would have a choice to opt out of the program by relocating somewhere else. 
My opinion is obviously more politically then technology based but remember that the best technology in the world that is not acceptable to the user will not be sold… 


Bob, 

I share much of your concerns about freedom in this country. Not only are our freedoms at risk, but our technological edge as well. I can easily imagine that future transportations systems (whatever their form) will be started elsewhere. Very sad. Ultimately we need smarter voters in this country. btw, here's my website for helping in that area: www.ExpertVoter.org 

So back to the technological issues. My own engineering background (programming & general engineering) tells me that control of the vehicles is well within what can be accomplished already. Controling a single vehicle is certainly not nearly as complex as the vehicle Nasa is landing on Mars tomorrow. So the only real issue is that of scaling the system. That's accomplished by distributing the processing. The vehicle itself is fairly autonomous, very similar to what's already been developed recently for the unmanned vehicle races you've probably heard about. On top of that there's a central control system that handles all the routing. Either system is capable of bringing a vehicle to a halt in the event of safety concerns, proving a great failsafe mechanism. 

As I said, the system only has enough vehicles to support peak traffic. So not even half as many PRT vehicles as automobiles. And during off peak hours, vehicles can simply stop where they are or rerout to a maintenance facility for routine cleanups, etc. Based on usage history vehicles would tend to rest where they are likely needed next. If you typically leave for work every morning at 6:30am, most likely the system would anticipate this and be waiting nearby. 

(One note on privacy...most cities have installed cameras at every intersection. And your license plate can be read, thus tracking your every movements. So your privacy worries, as well founded as they are, aren't necessarily that different with an automated system. It's all about smarter voting.) 

You mentioned trucking, specifically unusually heavy loads. The PRT vehicles only require a fraction of the existing road surfaces. It doesn't leave enough to keep driving automobiles, but it does leave enough for a maintenance road that could handle unusually large operations. I work for a construction company and believe me, we DO have some large vehicles. But normal freight will move about on the rails fairly easily. Rails are very strong and don't form potholes from truck traffic like asphalt. 

You mentioned emergency vehicles...that's where this sort of system really shines. When an emergency vehicles is needed across town, all other traffic would automatically know this and instantly reroute out of the way. No sirens needed. And the very concept of rubbernecking disappears from our vocabulary. 

gary


----------



## tmejia (Jan 2, 2008)

Gary, 

I'm impressed with the concept and how you presented it. It is nice to see someone coming up with alternatives instead of just complaining about our current situation. I do have a hard time picturing Catalina with all these vehicles and tracks on it though. 

Tommy 
Rio Gracie


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By gdstark on 05/23/2008 12:10 AM
Interesting discussion! I particularly like it since it's my website that Matthew found via google. I'd like to respond to some of the comments... 

... 

Semper: "No "private" vehicles???? NO WAY "I" could use the vehicle just exited by someone that decided to have a smoke while riding... or the one some kid (or drunk adult) just barfed (or worse) in." 
That's an easy one. Just like a city bus, no smoking would be allowed. And obviously if a vehicle is taken out of service due to barf, another one would replace it. 
... 






No smoking would be allowed??? Just like bank robbery is not allowed? For a person that is VIOLENTLY "allergic" to tobacco the self-centered individual that says, "It won't hurt if I smoke while I am alone in this public car", it is no different than the person that says, "It won't hurt if I point my Uzi at that man and empty several clips." 

As for providing a second vehicle if one has to be pulled from service... Well, you got called for Jury Duty and are to arrive at 8:00 AM and it takes 15 minutes of travel time, so the vehicle is ordered for 7:30 AM to give plenty of time. It arrives on-time, but is totally gunked up and must be sent back to the barn for cleaning. Another one is ordered... but none will be available for 15 minutes and the travel time TO your point of departure is another 15 minutes. Add your travel time of 15 minutes and YOU are LATE by 15 minutes or more... (Judges don't like that!) What are you going to do when you have to order yet another one because the second one is just as gunked up as the first. 

Have you seen the state a subway car can be in? Have you been in a public bus recently? They have a driver that can't seem to keep people from cutting seat cushions, removing screws from the seats, or smearing fecal matter all over the place!


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 05/27/2008 12:23 AM
Posted By gdstark on 05/23/2008 12:10 AM 
Interesting discussion! I particularly like it since it's my website that Matthew found via google. I'd like to respond to some of the comments... 
... 
Semper: "No "private" vehicles???? NO WAY "I" could use the vehicle just exited by someone that decided to have a smoke while riding... or the one some kid (or drunk adult) just barfed (or worse) in." 
That's an easy one. Just like a city bus, no smoking would be allowed. And obviously if a vehicle is taken out of service due to barf, another one would replace it. 
... 


No smoking would be allowed??? Just like bank robbery is not allowed? For a person that is VIOLENTLY "allergic" to tobacco the self-centered individual that says, "It won't hurt if I smoke while I am alone in this public car", it is no different than the person that says, "It won't hurt if I point my Uzi at that man and empty several clips." 
As for providing a second vehicle if one has to be pulled from service... Well, you got called for Jury Duty and are to arrive at 8:00 AM and it takes 15 minutes of travel time, so the vehicle is ordered for 7:30 AM to give plenty of time. It arrives on-time, but is totally gunked up and must be sent back to the barn for cleaning. Another one is ordered... but none will be available for 15 minutes and the travel time TO your point of departure is another 15 minutes. Add your travel time of 15 minutes and YOU are LATE by 15 minutes or more... (Judges don't like that!) What are you going to do when you have to order yet another one because the second one is just as gunked up as the first. 
Have you seen the state a subway car can be in? Have you been in a public bus recently? They have a driver that can't seem to keep people from cutting seat cushions, removing screws from the seats, or smearing fecal matter all over the place! 





An automated vehicle will require a fairly complex array of sensors. It's not unreasonable to assume that it could detect smoke and respond accordingly - possibly shutting the vehicle down until a service crew could investigate. Or even stopping by the local police station. 

The idea that you might be late for an appointment because you didn't give yourself enough time is something you already live with. The difference with an automated system is that traffic is much more efficiently managed. Could people as a whole be so destructive as to make public transportation impractical? I hope that's not the case. 

gary


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By gdstark on 05/27/2008 6:26 AM

«snip...» Could people as a whole be so destructive as to make public transportation impractical? I hope that's not the case. «snip...»
The problem there is that it doesn't require the _"the population as a whole"_ merely a very small percentage of the whole. It might be very instructive to investigate what the amount budgeted annually by the current mass transportation systems on security and maintenance as it relates solely to vandalism is. Remembering that by the very nature in which they are constructed provide a much more restrictive access than the system you are proposing. While it may seem petty, these are some of the real problems that must be faced and solutions found for any system to make them viable.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

What happens when someone in a wheelchair wants to cross the road, or go down the sidewalk thats now crisscut with rails? 

I completely fail to see how this would be any better than keeping the existing road system and simply switching to smaller and lighter weight all-electric or high effeciency hybrid cars and using a more traditional trolley car system integrated along major routes?, you would have to track every street in your average city and what happens when I want to go where there are no tracks?, might be less expensive to build that bridge between Alaska and Siberia.


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 05/27/2008 8:37 AM
Posted By gdstark on 05/27/2008 6:26 AM

«snip...» Could people as a whole be so destructive as to make public transportation impractical? I hope that's not the case. «snip...»
The problem there is that it doesn't require the _"the population as a whole"_ merely a very small percentage of the whole. It might be very instructive to investigate what the amount budgeted annually by the current mass transportation systems on security and maintenance as it relates solely to vandalism is. Remembering that by the very nature in which they are constructed provide a much more restrictive access than the system you are proposing. While it may seem petty, these are some of the real problems that must be faced and solutions found for any system to make them viable.




I suspect those currently riding public transportation (buses in particular) do not accurately represent the population as a whole. But you're right...the issue of vandalism would clearly need to be considered in a detailed analysis of a new transportation system. Common sense tells us that the ongoing cost would not be zero. But whether that could would be sufficient to doom the system is one that you and I can only speculate on. I haven't quit my "day job" and I certainly can't afford a real study of the situation. I can only tell you my gut feel on the issue. My hope is that the website will spur serious investigations by those with the resources to do so. 

Bottom line...I don't think we have an argument. 

gary


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/27/2008 8:45 AM 
What happens when someone in a wheelchair wants to cross the road, or go down the sidewalk thats now crisscut with rails? 
I completely fail to see how this would be any better than keeping the existing road system and simply switching to smaller and lighter weight all-electric or high effeciency hybrid cars and using a more traditional trolley car system integrated along major routes?, you would have to track every street in your average city and what happens when I want to go where there are no tracks?, might be less expensive to build that bridge between Alaska and Siberia.

Wheelchairs would need to cross at intersections, same as bicycle traffic, to access the sections where the road surface is raised to the track level. It would be too costly to embed the entire track. Btw, handicapped people would love this system as it would give them far more mobility than currently exists. Even the blind would achieve transportation independence. I suspect certain vehicles would be customized to better accommodate wheelchairs. 

Electric cars are great, but the battery issues (weight, recharging) are not insignificant. And electric cars by themselves do nothing to alleviate congestion and the thousands of deaths per year due to traffic fatalities. As for integrating new trolley car systems along major routes, are you proposing elevated platforms? Closing some existing lanes? That also has a cost. I see that as a short term solution to a long term problem. The future WILL be one of 100% automated vehicles. Get the drivers out of the equation. 

When you go where there are no tracks, you would obviously take a more traditional vehicle, either one you rent or your own vehicle if you have it in a parking garage at the edge of the system. I certainly agree that railed vehicles cannot go everywhere that cars can go, but it's all a matter of numbers. As long as your destination is within town or in a town connected with some sort of piggybacking system (or just faster vehicles), I suspect you will never need your car again. But farmer John will no doubt always have his tractor & atv nearby. 

> might be less expensive to build that bridge between Alaska and Siberia. 

Yes, I suspect it would be. I just wouldn't use it as often as I don't know anyone in Siberia. 

gary


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Gary

Another question, how do you address the safety concern of a 3rd-rail powered system installed throughout residential areas?


----------



## Robbie Hanson (Jan 4, 2008)

Gary, as a mechanical engineering geek, I have to pose the question: 
What do you do to climb hills? Is there a rack rail in the track? I live in a subdivision on the edge of a city, and there is a 30-35 percent hill to get out. How will the PRT handle grades like this? 

And how do you propose to lay track on streets that are nearly destroyed? The concrete here is original from 25 years ago....the streets have quite large potholes. I cannot see a potential solution without tearing up the streets and rebuilding them from scratch, a huge expenditure. 

Other than this, it sounds pretty cool!


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By SteveC on 05/27/2008 10:14 AM
Gary

Another question, how do you address the safety concern of a 3rd-rail powered system installed throughout residential areas?



My own research indicates that 48v is sufficient to power the vehicle, yet not deadly for all practical purposes. Apparently this is what many amusement park rides use for the same reason. 

gary


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By Robbie Hanson on 05/27/2008 10:55 AM 
Gary, as a mechanical engineering geek, I have to pose the question: 
What do you do to climb hills? Is there a rack rail in the track? I live in a subdivision on the edge of a city, and there is a 30-35 percent hill to get out. How will the PRT handle grades like this? 
And how do you propose to lay track on streets that are nearly destroyed? The concrete here is original from 25 years ago....the streets have quite large potholes. I cannot see a potential solution without tearing up the streets and rebuilding them from scratch, a huge expenditure. 
Other than this, it sounds pretty cool!


Yes, climbing steep grades would clearly be required in the design. My own best guess is that we're taking about a system with wheels on the side and/or below as used in roller coasters. That may also help in gripping the track on steep grades. But the short answer is that I believe vehicles can be designed that are capable of climbing such grades. 

As for destroyed roads (which actually describes a LOT of our roadways), that's definitely not a problem as the tracks aren't embedded into the surface but instead mounted above it. And unlike traditional rails supported by railroad ties, this would have a central post every so many feet deep into the surface. It's like a roller coaster track that's riding very near the surface in most cases. 

See this illustration: 
http://www.prtproject.com/images/prt track.jpg 

So you do NOT need to tear up the streets as you describe. 
gary


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

Ohh Kayyy, So... I have to ride to the edge of the system to get my car? Do you have any idea how big an urban area LA is ??? 

...and WHICH direction should I park it, east, what if I want to go west? rent a car? last time I rented a car it took 2 hours and cost a fortune, Why on earth would I want to do this? 

Also this notion of putting track right on top of the roadway is an accident lawyers dream, there would be hundreds of trip/fall claims within the first 100 days, if it happens with imbedded track which is much safer, putting it above grade would be legal suicide. What happens when I want to ride my bike or motorcycle down the road? What happens to truck traffic? Ever driven San Francisco? 

I just see more negatives than positves, there may be some real uses for a system like this as a general people-mover on its own dedicated right-of-ways, as a replacement for the auto, on the roadway, sorry but I need more convincing aurguments. 

Also for a system the size of LA how would you control it? You would need a supercomputer the size of Manhattan, to control up to 3-4 million vehicles trying to get from A to B? One punk vandal with a rock in a switch point and Kableuwi, that whole section goes down till its repaired. 

As I said above, for a city the size of LA this would be a horrendously complicated track system prone to massive failures. How is it better than re-establishing a Red Car trolley car/commuter system similar in scope to the Pacific Electric to handle major commuter corridors, using a larger electric/hybrid bus fleet system on collectors along secondary routes and tertiary routes and using electric/hybridc cars for remaining personal trasportation for those whose work or homes are not accessable by the trolley/bus system?


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/27/2008 12:03 PM
Ohh Kayyy, So... I have to ride to the edge of the system to get my car? Do you have any idea how big an urban area LA is ??? 
...and WHICH direction should I park it, east, what if I want to go west? rent a car? last time I rented a car it took 2 hours and cost a fortune, Why on earth would I want to do this? 
Also this notion of putting track right on top of the roadway is an accident lawyers dream, there would be hundreds of trip/fall claims within the first 100 days, if it happens with imbedded track which is much safer, putting it above grade would be legal suicide. What happens when I want to ride my bike or motorcycle down the road? What happens to truck traffic? Ever driven San Francisco? 
I just see more negatives than positves, there may be some real uses for a system like this as a general people-mover on its own dedicated right-of-ways, as a replacement for the auto, on the roadway, sorry but I need more convincing aurguments. 
Also for a system the size of LA how would you control it? You would need a supercomputer the size of Manhattan, to control up to 3-4 million vehicles trying to get from A to B? One punk vandal with a rock in a switch point and Kableuwi, that whole section goes down till its repaired. 
As I said above, for a city the size of LA this would be a horrendously complicated track system prone to massive failures. How is it better than re-establishing a Red Car trolley car/commuter system similar in scope to the Pacific Electric to handle major commuter corridors, using a larger electric/hybrid bus fleet system on collectors along secondary routes and tertiary routes and using electric/hybridc cars for remaining personal trasportation for those whose work or homes are not accessable by the trolley/bus system? 





I suspect most people would rent a vehicle rather than maintain their own, so which direction you want to travel wouldn't matter. The idea of keeping your old vehicle on standby would probably be more of a transitional need while the system is being built. Just curious...when you do make these trips out of town, where do you typically go? 

If you're concern about accidents with the above ground track is because people would trip over it, I'm just not seeing it. People just need to cross at the crosswalks. If you're concerned about people being hit by the vehicles, that's the job of the vehicles to sense the obstruction and respond accordingly. And that's a problem that already exists with automobiles. So even if you aren't convinced computers can do this better, wouldn't you agree that time is on the side of technology? It would be easy for me to descriabe the track as completely embedded, but my hunch is that this would cause even more technical (and maintenance) problems than not doing so. 

Yes, I've been to SF as recently as last week. And I will be there next Tuesday. Not sure of your point. 

Truck traffic would use the same rail system. 

> "dedicated right-of-ways" 

Dedicated right-of-ways is a doomed concept. Too few people will ever live near these dedicated right-of-ways. One single system will be more efficient than trying to integrate multiple systems (automobile & public transportation). 

> Also for a system the size of LA how would you control it? 

As a programmer I would say this is simply not a problem. The central system is really doing nothing but routing. Modern videogames move huge numbers of objects around in a 3D works with no problem. And don't forget...the processing is distributed...the vehicles themselves must have the onboard logic to move about, pickup passengers, and avoid objects. That fact allows the system to scale very nicely. No supercomputer is necessary. 

gary


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

I have to go with Vic on this one - and since he is apparently some species of civil engineer, his view carries a bit of weight. 

Right now, in all too many big cities, you have a massive bottlenecking commute with private cars from the burbs to the city center or what passes for such each morning...and a repeat in the other direction each evening. Plus lunch hour headaches. Putting all or even most of those people in little individualized railcars would seem to simply transfer those bottlenecks to the rails. Plus, with the sheer number of cars that would be called for, I don't really see a net energy savings, though with electric rigs, you would benefit pollution wise. 

That said, I do see some very serious potential in recreating a updated version of the old trolly car network, or an extensive light rail system featuring actual trains instead of personalized cars. 

The way things are getting...well, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up staring gasoline rationing or worse in five or six years anyhow, making it difficult or impossible for many or most folks to commute to work via private gasoline auto. I see this as a serious enough possibility to where serious planning and prep work should be underway *now* but I don't really see personalized rail transport as being a practical solution.


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By gdstark on 05/27/2008 1:55 PM
Posted By vsmith on 05/27/2008 12:03 PM 
Ohh Kayyy, So... I have to ride to the edge of the system to get my car? Do you have any idea how big an urban area LA is ??? 
...and WHICH direction should I park it, east, what if I want to go west? rent a car? last time I rented a car it took 2 hours and cost a fortune, Why on earth would I want to do this? 
Also this notion of putting track right on top of the roadway is an accident lawyers dream, there would be hundreds of trip/fall claims within the first 100 days, if it happens with imbedded track which is much safer, putting it above grade would be legal suicide. What happens when I want to ride my bike or motorcycle down the road? What happens to truck traffic? Ever driven San Francisco? 
I just see more negatives than positves, there may be some real uses for a system like this as a general people-mover on its own dedicated right-of-ways, as a replacement for the auto, on the roadway, sorry but I need more convincing aurguments. 
Also for a system the size of LA how would you control it? You would need a supercomputer the size of Manhattan, to control up to 3-4 million vehicles trying to get from A to B? One punk vandal with a rock in a switch point and Kableuwi, that whole section goes down till its repaired. 
As I said above, for a city the size of LA this would be a horrendously complicated track system prone to massive failures. How is it better than re-establishing a Red Car trolley car/commuter system similar in scope to the Pacific Electric to handle major commuter corridors, using a larger electric/hybrid bus fleet system on collectors along secondary routes and tertiary routes and using electric/hybridc cars for remaining personal trasportation for those whose work or homes are not accessable by the trolley/bus system? 


I suspect most people would rent a vehicle rather than maintain their own, so which direction you want to travel wouldn't matter. The idea of keeping your old vehicle on standby would probably be more of a transitional need while the system is being built. Just curious...when you do make these trips out of town, where do you typically go? 
If you're concern about accidents with the above ground track is because people would trip over it, I'm just not seeing it. People just need to cross at the crosswalks. If you're concerned about people being hit by the vehicles, that's the job of the vehicles to sense the obstruction and respond accordingly. And that's a problem that already exists with automobiles. So even if you aren't convinced computers can do this better, wouldn't you agree that time is on the side of technology? It would be easy for me to descriabe the track as completely embedded, but my hunch is that this would cause even more technical (and maintenance) problems than not doing so. 
Yes, I've been to SF as recently as last week. And I will be there next Tuesday. Not sure of your point. 
Truck traffic would use the same rail system. 
> "dedicated right-of-ways" 
Dedicated right-of-ways is a doomed concept. Too few people will ever live near these dedicated right-of-ways. One single system will be more efficient than trying to integrate multiple systems (automobile & public transportation). 
> Also for a system the size of LA how would you control it? 
As a programmer I would say this is simply not a problem. The central system is really doing nothing but routing. Modern videogames move huge numbers of objects around in a 3D works with no problem. And don't forget...the processing is distributed...the vehicles themselves must have the onboard logic to move about, pickup passengers, and avoid objects. That fact allows the system to scale very nicely. No supercomputer is necessary. 
gary




Today the railroads put up fences to keep people off the right-of-ways and build overhead crosswalks to get to the other side... and ADULTS cut holes in the fences so CHILDREN can cut across the tracks to get to places where they should not be. "Cross at crosswalks"... NOBODY does it now (and there are laws already on the books that say WE should/must!) why would a set of electrified rails in the middle of the street deter someone from crossing over them in their own conceited convenience. 

As for Low Voltages... Very, VERY, power wastefull. The power required is the product of Volts times Amps to get Watts (which is related to Horsepower). At low Voltages the Current required is quite high and the resistance of the rails is relatively high to the flow of Current. At high Voltages the resistance is relatively low... this is why electric power is transmitted via VERY high voltage (high tension) lines. The current is low so the resistance is of less impact to the flow of "POWER". High Voltage at low Current can be the same "Power" as low Voltage at high Currrent, but Resistance affects the flow of Current so if you use a low Voltage system you have more power loss due to resistance. Amusement parks get away with it because the distances involved (a few hundred feet) don't add up to much resistance, but in the system proposed, the distances would be many MILES and the resistance would be quite high meaning large losses of power. 

One could break the proposed system down into short sections, each fed from a separate power system that supplies low voltage but is fed from a high Voltage system. Now you have the logistics of supplying the power in a grid that runs along side of the rail system in some manner. 

If this proposed system were to be built INTO a NEW city where these logistics could be worked ahead of time to be the most effecient, then there might be some merit to it... this would also provide the time to work out the safety precautions (grade crossing and security of electrical systems) and auxilary travel systems (where to put the real "privately owned" cars are stowed and how to get from a residence to the closest rail system if it is not directly in front of the residence) and a system of living quarters vis-a-vis "business districts" and service area routes. It won't be easily integrated into New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles nor any other already constructed metropolis that has been constructed around, and compromised with, the general terrain of the Earth. 

Utopia does not, and will never, exist.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm not a civil engineer, but I have been in the archictural end of the construction business since the 1980's, even did a stint as a building inspector, so I've been around the block a few times with building codes, ADA laws, DOT regulations, legal liabilities, on and on, so I can see the potential shortcomings and liabilites with this proposal as stated. 

I can see potential as a standalone urban people mover, where the tracks are elevated above walkways and roadways. It could be accessable from the buildings served and with elevated tracks, you get in, enter your destination and the cars could go alond a route thru a city grid switching at intersections and dropping people off at the specified stop, there is potential here, but as a replacement for the personal automobile, it simply isnt gonna happen, remember the trolleys were going to be the end all transit system that would replace the horse and buggy, it didnt happen, simply because people still preferred the horse and buggy that allowed greater mobility, trolleys found there nitch in the commuter sevice. It took the automobile to replace the horse and buggy entirely all they did was remove the horse from the equation with a smelly gas motor bolted under the buggy. We've been driving the "horseless buggy" ever since. 

Even in the future, the car will be with us in one form or another until they invent instant transporter booths on every corner on every city on every nation, even then some kind of car device will still be used to get to the places outside of the transporter booths. Even if we in the end the cars we are driving are solar powered, or those compressed air powered Indian cars, or pedal powered jitney's, the "car" persay will always be with us. the freedom of movement the car allows is too great a motivator to ever go away. 

If you want to see an example of what I'm describing for urban use, rent "Minority Report" which features a much higher tech version of these tranporter trains, namely the mag-lev people movers depicted in the film, you get in, state your destination, the car then moves out onto a continous mag-lev plate, which BTW is seperated from pedestrian and road routes, computers control the speed and slotting of the cars which move across the plate depending on their ultimate desitination, even moving up and down the sides of buildings to get the passengers to their destinations...but even in Minority Report, there were STILL cars...check out the Lexus depicted in the movie. Sweet! 

All I'm saying is that there are a great deal of real world issues that need to be delt with, some of which I'm afraid to say are going to be deal killers as designed, seriously, this need more thought as to how it would work in the real, very code regulated, and very prone to lawsuites, world.


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By ThinkerT on 05/27/2008 2:31 PM
I have to go with Vic on this one - and since he is apparently some species of civil engineer, his view carries a bit of weight. 
Right now, in all too many big cities, you have a massive bottlenecking commute with private cars from the burbs to the city center or what passes for such each morning...and a repeat in the other direction each evening. Plus lunch hour headaches. Putting all or even most of those people in little individualized railcars would seem to simply transfer those bottlenecks to the rails. Plus, with the sheer number of cars that would be called for, I don't really see a net energy savings, though with electric rigs, you would benefit pollution wise. 
That said, I do see some very serious potential in recreating a updated version of the old trolly car network, or an extensive light rail system featuring actual trains instead of personalized cars. 
The way things are getting...well, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up staring gasoline rationing or worse in five or six years anyhow, making it difficult or impossible for many or most folks to commute to work via private gasoline auto. I see this as a serious enough possibility to where serious planning and prep work should be underway *now* but I don't really see personalized rail transport as being a practical solution. 




So perhaps we ultimately disagree on the solution, but we at least agree that we have very serious problem looming in our future with respect to fuel. Your solution seems to be a system that does not service people door-to-door, but instead is just "more traditional public transportation". My solution is to optimize the automobile. I realize you see my solution as just transferring the problem to rails, but think of it this way. Tomorrow morning as you sit at a stoplight and there's NOBODY for a mile, but you wait anyway....then just as a huge truck arrives at the interseciton and is forced to stop, losing ALL that potential energy just so you can go first, this is exactly the sort of gross inneficiency my system would remove. 

If you haven't already please watch this very short youtube movie: 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7wm-pZp_mi0 

Your system does not address this inefficiency at all. And neither does just using electric vehicles. Only full automation will fix this. Full automation is abolutely 100% inevitable in our transportation future, even if it doesn't look anything like what I propose. 

gary


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By Semper Vaporo on 05/27/2008 3:14 PM
Posted By gdstark on 05/27/2008 1:55 PM 
Today the railroads put up fences to keep people off the right-of-ways and build overhead crosswalks to get to the other side... and ADULTS cut holes in the fences so CHILDREN can cut across the tracks to get to places where they should not be. "Cross at crosswalks"... NOBODY does it now (and there are laws already on the books that say WE should/must!) why would a set of electrified rails in the middle of the street deter someone from crossing over them in their own conceited convenience. 
As for Low Voltages... Very, VERY, power wastefull. The power required is the product of Volts times Amps to get Watts (which is related to Horsepower). At low Voltages the Current required is quite high and the resistance of the rails is relatively high to the flow of Current. At high Voltages the resistance is relatively low... this is why electric power is transmitted via VERY high voltage (high tension) lines. The current is low so the resistance is of less impact to the flow of "POWER". High Voltage at low Current can be the same "Power" as low Voltage at high Currrent, but Resistance affects the flow of Current so if you use a low Voltage system you have more power loss due to resistance. Amusement parks get away with it because the distances involved (a few hundred feet) don't add up to much resistance, but in the system proposed, the distances would be many MILES and the resistance would be quite high meaning large losses of power. 
One could break the proposed system down into short sections, each fed from a separate power system that supplies low voltage but is fed from a high Voltage system. Now you have the logistics of supplying the power in a grid that runs along side of the rail system in some manner. 
If this proposed system were to be built INTO a NEW city where these logistics could be worked ahead of time to be the most effecient, then there might be some merit to it... this would also provide the time to work out the safety precautions (grade crossing and security of electrical systems) and auxilary travel systems (where to put the real "privately owned" cars are stowed and how to get from a residence to the closest rail system if it is not directly in front of the residence) and a system of living quarters vis-a-vis "business districts" and service area routes. It won't be easily integrated into New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles nor any other already constructed metropolis that has been constructed around, and compromised with, the general terrain of the Earth. 
Utopia does not, and will never, exist. 





There a big difference between a PRT vehicle and a passenger train. One can stop FASTER than an automobile, the other takes half a mile. People really could SAFELY cross the tracks anywhere they want as the vehicles would react fast enough not to hit anyone. The only reason to use the crosswalk is for the convenience of a road surface ramp to get them over the rails with bicycles, wheelchairs, etc. 

As to the electrical issue, you also answered your own question. You power the grid at many places...not just one place. 

> One could break the proposed system down into short sections 

Exactly. 

> Now you have the logistics of supplying the power in a grid that runs along side of the rail system in some manner. 

Not a problem. 

> If this proposed system were to be built INTO a NEW city 

If only we had that luxury. Obviously we don't. And I will be the first to admit...the transition is the hardest problem with this system I'm proposing. Other than that, it's a piece-o-cake engineering-wise. 

gary


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By vsmith on 05/27/2008 4:08 PM
I'm not a civil engineer, but I have been in the archictural end of the construction business since the 1980's, even did a stint as a building inspector, so I've been around the block a few times with building codes, ADA laws, DOT regulations, legal liabilities, on and on, so I can see the potential shortcomings and liabilites with this proposal as stated. 
I can see potential as a standalone urban people mover, where the tracks are elevated above walkways and roadways. It could be accessable from the buildings served and with elevated tracks, you get in, enter your destination and the cars could go alond a route thru a city grid switching at intersections and dropping people off at the specified stop, there is potential here, but as a replacement for the personal automobile, it simply isnt gonna happen, remember the trolleys were going to be the end all transit system that would replace the horse and buggy, it didnt happen, simply because people still preferred the horse and buggy that allowed greater mobility, trolleys found there nitch in the commuter sevice. It took the automobile to replace the horse and buggy entirely all they did was remove the horse from the equation with a smelly gas motor bolted under the buggy. We've been driving the "horseless buggy" ever since. 
Even in the future, the car will be with us in one form or another until they invent instant transporter booths on every corner on every city on every nation, even then some kind of car device will still be used to get to the places outside of the transporter booths. Even if we in the end the cars we are driving are solar powered, or those compressed air powered Indian cars, or pedal powered jitney's, the "car" persay will always be with us. the freedom of movement the car allows is too great a motivator to ever go away. 
If you want to see an example of what I'm describing for urban use, rent "Minority Report" which features a much higher tech version of these tranporter trains, namely the mag-lev people movers depicted in the film, you get in, state your destination, the car then moves out onto a continous mag-lev plate, which BTW is seperated from pedestrian and road routes, computers control the speed and slotting of the cars which move across the plate depending on their ultimate desitination, even moving up and down the sides of buildings to get the passengers to their destinations...but even in Minority Report, there were STILL cars...check out the Lexus depicted in the movie. Sweet! 
All I'm saying is that there are a great deal of real world issues that need to be delt with, some of which I'm afraid to say are going to be deal killers as designed, seriously, this need more thought as to how it would work in the real, very code regulated, and very prone to lawsuites, world.




> I can see potential as a standalone urban people mover, where the tracks are elevated above walkways and roadways. 

I see the elevated idea as WAY too expensive. And ugly. And worst of all, not door-to-door. 

> Even if we in the end the cars we are driving are solar powered, 

We will be in cars, but we will not be driving them. Certainly not in 500 years. Very unlikely in 100 years. Questionable in 50 years. But inevitably we will not be driving. Technology is simply not standing still. 

> simply because people still preferred the horse and buggy that allowed greater mobility 

More generically, they preferred door-to-door service. 

> until they invent instant transporter booths 

That's probably more on the 500 years out timeframe. We will need something to fill the gap in the mean time. 

> the freedom of movement the car allows is too great a motivator to ever go away. 

Thank you. 


> If you want to see an example of what I'm describing for urban use, rent "Minority Report" 

I even had a picture of the Minority Report vehicle on the website early on. Great movie, but vehicles climbing building is fairly silly. btw, I don't recall them specifying it was maglev. Did they? 

gary


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

So perhaps we ultimately disagree on the solution, but we at least agree that we have very serious problem looming in our future with respect to fuel. 
Yep, we agree there. As of now, I figure we are about half a dozen years, give or take a couple depending on just exactly how things play out, from what amounts to catastrophe. 


Your solution seems to be a system that does not service people door-to-door, but instead is just "more traditional public transportation". 

Planning, building, and working the bugs out of the PRT system - *IF* it actually is doable - would take decades, probably something on the order of half a century. The way I see it, there are going to be a great many civilian gasoline powered personal auto's going nowhere in less than a decade - gasoline will either be rationed, or it will be too expensive for most people to afford on a regular basis. When that realization hits, the options are either 

1) Anarchy - riots, martial law, Road Warrior type stuff, or 

2) cobble together some sort of mass transit system in a hurry. Maybe integrate the school bus system with regular mass transit somehow. 

Once the realization hits that the good old days of the internal combustion powered personal rigs ain't coming back, and once it becomes apparent the electrical grid can't support all that many electric cars being plugged in every night, people will start wanting to 'move up' from the improvised mass transit system to something else. In big dense urban areas, something like the PRT might be chosen. But for the rest it will almost certainly be some combination of busses and light rail. 

As time goes by, I see a gradual emptying out of suburbia, especially those parts of suburbia which are not connected to the rest of civilization by some sort of reliable mass transit. Energy costs - electric and home heating will also force a lot of people to move out of the suburbs. A few decades down the trail, except for gated and/or 'green' communities, most suburbs will be the haunt of drug dealers, squatters, criminals, religious fanatics, and 'hicks', for want of a better term. Most folks will live in urban areas, close to where they work, shop, and go to school; mostly in apartments or townhouse deals.


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Posted By ThinkerT on 05/27/2008 8:47 PM 
So perhaps we ultimately disagree on the solution, but we at least agree that we have very serious problem looming in our future with respect to fuel. 
Yep, we agree there. As of now, I figure we are about half a dozen years, give or take a couple depending on just exactly how things play out, from what amounts to catastrophe. 

Your solution seems to be a system that does not service people door-to-door, but instead is just "more traditional public transportation". 

Planning, building, and working the bugs out of the PRT system - *IF* it actually is doable - would take decades, probably something on the order of half a century. The way I see it, there are going to be a great many civilian gasoline powered personal auto's going nowhere in less than a decade - gasoline will either be rationed, or it will be too expensive for most people to afford on a regular basis. When that realization hits, the options are either 
1) Anarchy - riots, martial law, Road Warrior type stuff, or 
2) cobble together some sort of mass transit system in a hurry. Maybe integrate the school bus system with regular mass transit somehow. 
Once the realization hits that the good old days of the internal combustion powered personal rigs ain't coming back, and once it becomes apparent the electrical grid can't support all that many electric cars being plugged in every night, people will start wanting to 'move up' from the improvised mass transit system to something else. In big dense urban areas, something like the PRT might be chosen. But for the rest it will almost certainly be some combination of busses and light rail. 
As time goes by, I see a gradual emptying out of suburbia, especially those parts of suburbia which are not connected to the rest of civilization by some sort of reliable mass transit. Energy costs - electric and home heating will also force a lot of people to move out of the suburbs. A few decades down the trail, except for gated and/or 'green' communities, most suburbs will be the haunt of drug dealers, squatters, criminals, religious fanatics, and 'hicks', for want of a better term. Most folks will live in urban areas, close to where they work, shop, and go to school; mostly in apartments or townhouse deals. 



Geez ThinkerT, that's a rather gloomy outlook. I have kids so I need to find a less Mel Gibson-like future. I agree that a PRT system would not happen overnight, but I suspect a dedicated effort to make it work could succeed within ten years. After that another ten years to implement. 

gary


----------



## Guest (May 28, 2008)

Geez ThinkerT, that's a rather gloomy outlook.


it is. but i am with thinkert, that it is better to aknowledge upcoming problems and do 'something' (even if it is not perfect), than to maintain an unbased optimistic outlook to future, to be hit right between the eyes, when the fan is hit. 

I have kids so I need to find a less Mel Gibson-like future.


i got kids too. i prefer, that they will have to use some kind of trolley, than them having to live in 'Mad max'style comunities.


----------



## neals645 (Apr 7, 2008)

An interesting discussion...which leads me to three questions 

Question 1) Why does the PRT system need rails? It could be done much cheaper using wheeled vehicles. Simply paint the "rails" on the roadway using special magnetic paint which the computer controlled system would use to stay in the proper lane. Power for the vehicles should be self-contained batteries (others have already explained why 48 volt won't work) so there's no need to lay a power rail either. The vehicles could be programmed to park at special recharging stations whenever they are not in use. 

Question 2) Why do the vehicles all have to be identical? No reason whatsoever - as long as there is a standard computer specification for routing and collision advoidance the vehicles can easily be different for reasons of usage, styling or personal preference. 

Question 3 - Why do the vehicles have to be publicly owned and shared? As long as the control, routing and collision avoidance systens are standardized and required, vehicles can be publicly owned and shared or privately owned, or a mix. 

In other words, all that's really needed is todays electric car with computerized driver. The PRT system goes off the track by forcing an Orwellian solution onto an idea that has some potential. 

Neal


----------



## gdstark (May 23, 2008)

Hi Neal, 

The reason for rails is reliability. If you're going to fully automate the system, it's much easier to manage. Imagine standing five feet from a vehicle moving past at 30mph. Would you feel safer if the vehicle was on rails or pavement with potholes? And rails are also more efficient, energy-wise. And you can run vehicles closer together. And rails have far less maintenance issues (no potholes, etc). And tires are made of rubber, a petroleum byproduct. And by using rails, you remove the need for all the batteries, which are themselves problematic environmentally. And you don't need the downtime you have with recharging stations. 48v 3rd rail systems are already in use in other applications, so I disagree with those who don't think it will work. 

The vehicles would not all be identical. You would have specialized vehicles for hauling freight, construction, emergency response, etc. But make no mistake...having lots of different vehicles just to satisfy aesthetic taste is not environmentally sound. It requires more complex manufacturing facilities and larger parts inventories. Bad idea. 
By treating the vehicles as a public commodity, you only need enough vehicles to satisfy peak demand. Surely you see a smaller total inventory as an advantage environmentally. The system you suggest is as you say, just electric cars. Replacing gasoline engines with electric ones is certainly a step in the right direction, but will never give you the efficiencies mentioned above. 

As for Orwellian concerns, make no mistake - your privacy on the road is nearly gone already. Surely you've noticed the cameras at every intersection. So any distinction between rails and the automobile is pretty much gone. The only real way to avoid an Orwellian future is to vote wisely. One of my favorite quotes on democracy... 

“Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” 
-- George Bernard Shaw 

gary 


Posted By neals645 on 06/11/2008 10:31 AM 
An interesting discussion...which leads me to three questions 
Question 1) Why does the PRT system need rails? It could be done much cheaper using wheeled vehicles. Simply paint the "rails" on the roadway using special magnetic paint which the computer controlled system would use to stay in the proper lane. Power for the vehicles should be self-contained batteries (others have already explained why 48 volt won't work) so there's no need to lay a power rail either. The vehicles could be programmed to park at special recharging stations whenever they are not in use. 
Question 2) Why do the vehicles all have to be identical? No reason whatsoever - as long as there is a standard computer specification for routing and collision advoidance the vehicles can easily be different for reasons of usage, styling or personal preference. 
Question 3 - Why do the vehicles have to be publicly owned and shared? As long as the control, routing and collision avoidance systens are standardized and required, vehicles can be publicly owned and shared or privately owned, or a mix. 
In other words, all that's really needed is todays electric car with computerized driver. The PRT system goes off the track by forcing an Orwellian solution onto an idea that has some potential. 
Neal


----------

