[sustran] Re: Yellow Brick Road, maybe, but what was behind the Wizard's screen ?

[Brendan Finn]

Alan,

I visited the ULTra test track in Cardiff in late-2003, listened to the
presentation with an open mind, and had a ride in the cars. I wasn't
impressed by either the seating or ride comfort, or by the general speed.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why any driver would prefer to use
one of these rather than to drive their own car, unless conditions for car
use were made either intolerable or unaffordable. (Perhaps as a short
shuttle within a closed complex, but not for "real" trips).

For passengers, the comfort of GOOD bus services is far superior. (Of
course, if the real objective is insulation from other human beings, well I
just don't have an answer for that). Modest investments in bus services and
priority within traffic would do infinitely more for mobility and market
share than any investment in PRT. The huge strides made in Demand Responsive
/ Flexible Transport show that it can provide the complementary mobility for
both irregular trips and for special needs users.

Also, I find far too many gaps in their logic, especially when they tout it
as an "anywhere to anywhere" system. Has anyone seriously thought just how
much system is needed to connect "everywhere" to "every other where" ?

We currently have a road system that offers that total level of
connectivity - a common infrastructure that can be used by freight vehicles,
buses, cars, cyclists, pedestrians and animal traffic. As so many people on
this site keep on saying, our road system is failing because of the
unrestricted growth of a single mode - the private car - without regard for
the other users or more efficient means of providing mobility.

We need to revitalise and reposition the system that actually exists in our
cities and villages, and which impacts all 6 billion plus of us in our daily
lives. Many people on Sustrans and elsewhere, including Eric Britton, are
trying to map out this complex web, understand the linkages, and find the
equally complex set of solutions to this.

Until this most recent debate, I have remained somewhere between
uninterested and apathetic about PRT, I guess on the grounds that only a
city with more money than sense would invest in it. That rules out just
about everywhere that I live and work (on the lack of money grounds, rather
than sense!). However, if I thought it was going to divert a single cent or
a minute of attention from the struggle for better mobility, then I would
rapidly take a position. A campaigning one. Very strongly. Against.

With best wishes,


Brendan Finn,
ETTS Ltd., Ireland.







-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+etts=indigo.ie at list.jca.apc.org]On Behalf Of
Alan Howes
Sent: 06 January 2005 09:36
To: >
Subject: [sustran] Re: Following the Yellow Brick Road to PRT

I'm not familiar with this Rotterdam example - but my suspicion is that it
is not a "true" PRT.  The PRT system I am most familiar with is ULTra (see
http://www.atsltd.co.uk/); the key characteristics of this system are that
it is a "spider web" network  , not a single line, and that users are
offered a direct, non-stop transit from any stop on the network to any other
stop - in theory with no wait time.  ULTra uses battery-powered,
rubber-tyred and electronically guided vehicles carrying up to 4 people on a
(probably) elevated guideway.

NB - neither I nor my employer has a financial stake in ULTra, nor any other
PRT system! :-)    But I do believe it's a concept whose time will come.

Alan

--
Alan Howes
Associate Transport Planner
Colin Buchanan

4 St Colme Street
Edinburgh      EH3 6AA
Scotland
email:  alan.howes at cbuchanan.co.uk
tel:      (0)131 240 2892 (direct)
           (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard)
           (0)7952 464335  (mobile)
fax:     (0)131 220 0232
www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/
_______________________________
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the
addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you
have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to
this email.
Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not
constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP, do
not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice or
opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions
of business.
We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software
viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by
software viruses.
_______________________________


>>> <i-ce at cycling.nl> 06/01/05 08:21:00 >>>

I know of an example where it is working (Rotterdam, it is called
automated people mover). It is not fast (maximum waiting time 10
minutes). It is not near the city centre, so you are right about the low
densities. It connects a metrostation with a new business park.



On 5 Jan 2005 at 22:21, Alan P Howes wrote:

> So who was plagiarising who here?
>
> Problem is with 'merkins, they also have to be so polemical about
> anything.
>
> I'm rather more sanguine about PRT - I reckon we will see a few
> successful implementations in the next ten years, in fairly specific
> circumstances where development densities are low and there is no
> strong CBD.
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:05:32 -0500, "Eric Bruun"
> <ericbruun at earthlink.net> wrote to "Sierra Club Forum on
> Transportation Issues" <CONS-SPST-SPRAWL-TRANS at LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG>,
> <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>, <hgstransport at yahoogroups.com>:
>
> >> > PTP Digest 2005/01/03-A = CONTENTS
> >
> >> > * NJ's PRT 'Gadgetbahn' is a boondoggle
> >> >     New York Press Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004
> > =PTP====================================================
> >> >
> >> > http://www.nypress.com/17/52/pagetwo/newshole8.cfm
> >> >
> >> > New York Press
> >> > Vol 17 - Issue 51 - December 22-28, 2004
> >> >
> >> > Gadgetbahn
> >
> >> > A few weeks ago, the state of New Jersey appropriated $75,000 to
> >> > study the development of a personal rapid transit system for Long
> >> > Branch, a shore town just south of New York City. If PRT projects
> >> > elsewhere are a sign of things to come, it's the beginning of an
> >> > epic boondoggle.
> >> >
> >> > As described by its promoters, PRT is a computerized, driverless
> >> > mass transit system. The passenger enters a sleek, four-person
> >> > pod that is guaranteed to be waiting at the station, swipes a
> >> > fare card, punches in
> >a
> >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16
> >> > feet above street level with stations every two or three blocks
> >> > apart. PRT advocates promise transportation with no wait, no
> >> > traffic and no smelly strangers.
> >> >
> >> > In theory. In practice PRT has never worked anywhere despite 30
> >> > years of study and development. Combining the small carrying
> >> > capacity of an automobile with the expensive infrastructure of
> >> > mass transit, PRT offers the worst of both worlds. If you want to
> >> > see what it looks like, watch
> >The
> >> > Incredibles. In the movie, the evil villain's henchmen travel
> >> > about
> >their
> >> > volcanic- island lair in pods that look remarkably similar to the
> >> > system SkyWeb Express is selling to New Jersey.
> >> >
> >> > It's fitting that a cartoon villain should choose PRT as his ride
> >> > of
> >choice.
> >> > Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major scam.
> >> > In Minneapolis, Cincinnati, Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT
> >> > has burned through tens of millions of dollars of public and
> >> > private investment.
> >The
> >> > only tangible result has been to clear the way for highway
> >> > construction and make legitimate mass transit projects more
> >> > difficult to build. In at
> >least
> >> > a few cases, after finally running PRT out of town, citizens
> >> > learned
> >that the
> >> > public officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes
> >> > in the
> >companies developing it.
> >> >
> >> > There are signs that all of this is now underway across the
> >> > river. PRT advocates expect to wring another $1,000,000 out of
> >> > the New Jersey legislatures shortly. They dream of a pod network
> >> > stretching from
> >Atlantic
> >> > City to the misbegotten Xanadu sports and entertainment complex
> >> > at the
> >Meadowlands.
> >> >
> >> > The PRT craze is a clear sign that an endgame is underway.
> >> > Suburban Americans are waking up to the fact that their car-based
> >> > lifestyle is
> >broken
> >> > and unsustainable. They are starting to look for solutions, but
> >> > their
> >vision
> >> > is limited by an "autonomist" ideology that places personal
> >> > convenience above all else, no matter what the cost. Rather than
> >> > looking at transportation options that we know work (PRT gurus
> >> > derisively refer to the train as a "19th-century technology"),
> >> > Americans are looking for a high-tech miracle to save them from
> >> > the rough road that is so clearly
> >ahead. PRT ain't it.
> >> >
> >> > Volume 17, Issue 52
> >> >
> >=PTP===================================================
> >> >
> >> > http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01032005.html
> >> >
> >> > CounterPunch:
> >> > November 27 / 28, 2004
> >> >
> >> > Strange Bedfellows
> >> >
> >> > Greens and Republicans
> >> >
> >> > By JOSHUA FRANK
> >> >
> >> > You probably haven't heard of it. It goes by the name of Personal
> >> > Rapid Transit (PRT), and it is fast becoming the latest fad of
> >> > the Green Party
> >and others.
> >> >
> >> > So what is this PRT anyway? As Aaron Naparstek recently wrote in
> >> > NY Press, "PRT is a computerized, driverless mass transit system.
> >> > The passenger enters a sleek, four-person pod that is guaranteed
> >> > to be waiting at the station, swipes a fare card, punches in a
> >> > destination and goes. The pods run on a web of elevated tracks 16
> >> > feet above street
> >level
> >> > with stations every two or three blocks apart. PRT advocates
> >> > promise transportation with no wait, no traffic and no smelly
> >> > strangers."
> >> >
> >> > Even David Cobb, the anointed leader of the GP, has touted PRT as
> >> > a "Green Technology" and trumped its potential benefits while
> >> > "campaigning" in Minnesota last year. Dean Zimmerman a
> >> > Minneapolis, Minnesota city councilman and GP member says that
> >> > PRT "is going to be a major breakthrough in how people move
> >> > around urban centers." Zimmerman has even spoken publicly with
> >> > right-wing Republicans to make a case for more public funds to
> >> > study the technology.
> >> >
> >> > Sounds odd. Are Republicans turning green on us? Or is the
> >> > national Green Party losing its marbles? Sorry to say, it's the
> >> > latter.
> >> >
> >> > In reality PRT has never worked despite over 30 years of research
> >> > and development. Combining the small carrying capacity of a small
> >> > car, with the expensive infrastructure of mass transit, PRT
> >> > offers the worst of
> >both
> >> > worlds. Plus, it's the brainchild of Ed Anderson's private
> >> > corporation
> >Taxi
> >> > 2000, who has already made a bundle of cash by convincing city
> >> > and state governments that it is in their best interest to hand
> >> > over phat
> >research checks.
> >> >
> >> > Although Los Angeles and Santa Cruz California have voted down
> >> > proposals to allocate money to study the futuristic transit
> >> > system, New Jersey, which has already appropriated $75,000 to
> >> > PRT, plans to up that by $100,000 this coming year. While out in
> >> > Minneapolis and Duluth, Greens and others are hoping their
> >> > government will pony up the needed
> >cash to go through with the PRT study.
> >> >
> >> > Despite the past failures of PRT, hopes among its boosters remain
> >> > high. Perhaps their hopes aren't for a green public transit
> >> > system; rather
> >they
> >> > hope PRT can continue to swindle even more loot out of government
> >accounts.
> >> >
> >> > "PRT is really a stalking horse for the pro-highway, anti transit
> >lobby,"
> >> > claims Ken Avidor who has kept a watchful eye on PRT in his home
> >> > state on Minnesota. "It is supported by highway engineering
> >> > firms, right-wing Republicans like [Minnesota] State Senator
> >> > Michele Bachmann and Tom
> >Delay."
> >> >
> >> > This new marriage surely makes for strange bedfellows, as Greens
> >> > and Republicans seem to see eye to eye on the PRT boondoggle.
> >> > Plus, Greens should know the history of those they are jumping
> >> > into bed with.
> >> >
> >> > The state of Illinois and Raytheon, the maker of "Bunker Buster"
> >> > bombs, Tomahawk, Patriot missiles, and other assorted weaponry --
> >> > has invested over $38 million to study PRT in the Chicago metro
> >> > area.
> >> >
> >> > "Though it all sounds very gee-whiz innocent, PRT is a major
> >> > scam," writes Naparstek in NY Press. "In Minneapolis, Cincinnati,
> >> > Seattle, Chicago and elsewhere, PRT has burned through tens of
> >> > millions of dollars of public and private investment. The only
> >> > tangible result has
> >been
> >> > to clear the way for highway construction and make legitimate
> >> > mass transit projects more difficult to build. In at least a few
> >> > cases, after
> >finally
> >> > running PRT out of town, citizens learned that the public
> >> > officials most enthusiastic about PRT had financial stakes in the
> >> > companies developing
> >it."
> >> >
> >> > Joshua Frank is the author of the forthcoming book, Left Out!:
> >> > How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, to be released in
> >> > early 2005 by Common Courage Press. He can be reached at:
> >> > frank_joshua at hotmail.com
> >> >
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland
> alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk
> http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/  [Needs Updating!]
>


***************************************************
I-ce = Interface for Cycling Expertise
New adress: Trans 3
3512 JJ Utrecht
The Netherlands
tel: +31 30 230 4521
fax: +31 30 231 2384
email: i-ce at cycling.nl
www.cycling.nl
***************************************************