In the near-term, having looked at many proposals to retrofit or adapt the existing transport system in my studies at UC Berkeley and beyond, nothing I’m aware of has more merit than electrified transit. PRT/GRT/etcRT is one form of this; light rail and BART are forms of this. However, they do not serve, as Calthorpe has stated, low density neighborhoods (PRT might, if ever implemented; it can be argued it would be cheaper than maintaining roads and the cars that use them to provide PRT to every home).

But wait, what have we “forgotten”!?

Too often overlooked is the form of electrification in which everyday trucks and buses — rubber-tired vehicles — hook up to overhead wires. These are generally known as trolleybuses and, for cargo, trolleytrucks.

Any existing truck or bus can be retrofitted to work from electricity provided via overhead wires.

Such vehicles are more powerful and more efficient; less polluting and generate less carbon; they are much quieter; economically they’re much cheaper in the long-term, life-cycle analysis even before calculating for externalities; trolleytrucks and trolleybuses will eventually be powered by renewable energy for an even better, rock-bottom carbon footprint; and can use existing roads and bridges *IMMEDIATELY*, whereas PRT requires a whole new level of built environment using increasingly scarce energy and resources (those facilities are convenient because they’re what we have now, although it looks quite likely we will not be able to maintain them long and should begin investing in phasing them into something new at once; the Bay Area’s Regional Transportation Plan currently allocates an enormous percentage of the whole to an admittedly failing plan to try to maintain them. The Plan also invests in increased ‘free’ways even as it claims to be a dramatic advance toward cutting carbon emissions).

I give a presentation on this 100+ years tried and true technology, including a discussion of health benefits and how it mutually augments a move toward more livable, walkable, bikeable communities. A version of my slides can be found on the web, here:

http://www.slideshare.net/TCC08/weds1415oilfreetransportmeggs

I’m happy to give this presentation anywhere in the world and would like to see an advocacy movement form around these issues (including PRT, to the extent it’s viable and appropriate to pursue at the time).

NOTHING HAPPENS WITHOUT ADVOCACY.

Jason Meggs, MCP/MPH

Comments allow readers to interact and advance discussion about issues raised in Terrain, and we welcome readers’ suggestions and participation. Comments submitted to the site are automatically posted without being approved by Terrain’s editors. Terrain reserves the right to edit or delete comments that are libelous, defamatory, personal attacks, hate speech or spam. Please keep conversations civil and on-topic. If you’d like a forum for discussing other topics not in Terrain, or have concerns about comments posted on the site, please contact us at terraineditorial@ecologycenter.org.

We appreciate the spirited debate going on here and invite you to keep commenting — just please refrain from making accusations or personal remarks about other individuals.

Agreed on all points above.

[ ... A portion of this comment has been edited to remove a remark concerning a person which was in violation of Terrain's commenting policy.]

I too look forward to seeing Heathrow go online & demonstrate the utility of PRT to the world. There is a critical mass of City governors in the US, Europe & elsewhere that are just waiting for the opportunity to do something meaningful. These pilot projects at Heathrow & Masdar will give them the ability to bring the technology to their constituents.

Rather than analogizing from failed luggage-handling systems, or even successful industrial-materials transport systems, let’s actually look at a real-world PRT system for travelers: the ULTra PRT system that shuttles between Terminal 5 and its long-range (business) parking structure at Heathrow Airport in London. The construction of this system is complete, and final tests and demonstrations are now in progress, in anticipation of the start of full passenger service in the next several months. The system is so far along — passing its tests with flying colors — that a conference on PRT technology was held this past April at Heathrow, and conference attendees got to see the system in action and examine the pods and other aspects of the technology for themsevles. On YouTube, you can see videos of the system and pods, as taken by one of the conference attendees: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haebcs3-CwA&NR=1.

I am told that, by fall, we will know just how well a true PRT system can perform to serve real-world passenger needs. I am content to wait and see what happens. I note with some amusement that the fellow (suspected of being “Reality Check” here) used to argue vehemently that no real PRT system had ever been built or WOULD ever be built. [ ... A portion of this comment has been edited to remove a remark concerning a person which was in violation of Terrain's commenting policy.]

Now that he is wrong on both counts, he has switched tactics to saying that the phrase “personal rapid transit” is a fraud, because the pods (and here he focuses on the ULTra system used at Heathrow) travel at a rate of between 25 and 35 mph. What he won’t admit (out of fear of embarrassment, I expect, as his objection is fairly lame) is that nobody says that the PODS are rapid; rather, that the SYSTEM is rapid. It doesn’t so much matter how fast you travel, as how soon you arrive. Indeed, the AVERAGE speed of travel in PRT is at least as high, and often higher, than other systems that offer faster vehicles — including the highway system at rush hour: The reason being that travel on PRT is direct to destination without any interim stops or other delays, so the passenger travels a consistent 25-35 mph. Systems such as San Francisco’s BART, on the other hand, must run faster vehicles — putting passengers in greater danger should crashes or derailments occur — to get around the near constant acceleration and deceleration necessary to stop at EVERY intermediate stop from point A to B. Top speed of BART trains is 80 MPH. But BART’s average speed — the only speed you care about when deciding how long it will take you to get from A to B — is only 33 MPH. (This is their own estimate.) On the roads, a Ferrari doesn’t get you there any faster than a 1949 VW Bug in bumper-to-bumper, gridlock traffic. The good news for PRT fans is that average speed increases to 40-50 MPH are quite feasible and economical, and can be anticipated in the design of present-day PRT systems that might initially run at lower speeds until people are comfortable with the systems and their technologies. PRT systems start out competitive with the fastest general purpose “rapid transit” systems, and include lots of room for improvement.

I wonder what the “Reality Checks” of the world will say when the Heathrow system is serving passengers successfully. I am also content to wait to see what happens on THAT score.

[A portion of this comment has been edited to remove a remark concerning a person which was in violation of Terrain’s commenting policy.]

Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is a Joke http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRTisaJoke.html

Although a fan and supporter of PRT, I am deeply skeptical about
the alleged “peak oil” phenomenon, and the so-called “necessity”
(whether economic or environmental) of reducing the carbon footprint
of transportation. Fortunately, I don’t have to get into an argument
about this with those who have no doubt. PRT appeals to me because, while
I love to drive, I hate to deal with the hassles and expenses of driving,
especially when I am tired, in a hurry, or have had too much of a good
time at a party. When I want to go somewhere, I want to go directly there,
without any delays, enjoying reasonable comfort and privacy along the way.
Of course, as anyone would, I’d also like to pay a minimum for the trip.
If I can do all that via a particular mode of transportation and still
“be kind” to my fellow citizens (by helping to reduce traffic congestion
and the need for ever more pervasive roadway infrastructure) and the environment,
(by reducing carbon emissions and overall energy usage) then said mode becomes
compellingly attractive to me. PRT appears to offer such a transportation mode.
I wouldn’t — couldn’t — choose it for every transportation need, but would
choose it often enough, instead of firing up and driving my own car, to help
PRT be financially self-sustaining (assuming that thousands of others would
also chose PRT sometimes, but not always).

I know firsthand that PRT projects are not eligible for stimulus funding, because
our local group inquired about that with our congressional representative. Worse,
however, is that there seems to be no interest among the House reps or Senators to
provide for PRT in the catch-all Transportation bill that is currently being
crafted. If PRT looks good to you, write your representative and Senators in
Washington to alert them to your interest in this form of transportation. They
need to know that a constituency exists.

James Anderson Merritt, member
Santa Cruz PRT, Inc. (non-profit PRT advocacy group)

The problem is that Cybertran and the other GRT new
technologies are not eligibile for the stimulus funding, so
instead $trillions are budgeted to be wasted on outdated
inefficient technology (esp autos, roads, and bridges) that
will only worsen U.S. dependence on non-existent oil. Current
stimulus funding is just inflationary, not an investment.
The solution is for cities and local govt. to push for fed.
to include newer transit technology in the next inevitable
economic stimulus bill, and Terrain can help by identifying
the most likely bay-area demonstration sites such as:
-Oakland Airport connector
-San Jose
-Stanford
-Marin/”SMART” route
-Berkeley ferry/marina to campus
-East Bay CSU (Hayward)
-Automated tram routes have also been suggested for SF and a
few other locations. A tram route to Sacramento is the most
efficient solution to the congested railway along the I-80
corridor
fu

The studies about whether there’s enough demand haven’t been done. Do people want this, or would they rather drive their cars? You can’t look at it as a pure technological gee-whiz kind of thing.”

There have been many many such studies and they show considerable demand. I’d like to get in touch with Rachel Zurer. Couldn’t locate her on your phone tree.

Regards,

Dennis Manning – working hard for PRT in Fresno