[sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up

[Dr Adhiraj Joglekar]

Cant wait for the day I can say - beam me up Scotty

I might just sleep in peace presuming they won't make a racket caused by jet
engines overhead in West London.

A

On 3 May 2011 18:11, E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm <et3 at et3.com> wrote:

> Dave and Eric, you are both on to something here -- M2W
> (scooters/motorcycles/mopeds) are gaining share in many emerging
> markets, AND they have some problems too as both of you have pointed
> out.
>
> Compared to a car, a motorcycle or freeway capable scooter can achieve
> much higher efficiencies and load factors (as proven by motorcycles in
> California (where lane splitting is legal) doubles lane capacity
> compared to single occupant cars). Consider a car with an empty weight
> of 1000kg, a 1500cc 5 cylinder engine capable of safely seating 5
> persons.  Now consider 5 scooters each with a single cylinder
> (identical to the car's cylinder of 300cc each).  The scooters each
> have two seats of capacity *5 = 10 total seats capacity, and have a
> mass of 150kg * 5 = 750kg (250kg less material).
>
> At 100% load factor (all seats filled) the car gets 40mpg * 5 =
> 200pmpg, the scooters get 100mpg *2 = 200pmpg (no change in energy
> efficiency) BUT the scooters have double the capacity and 5 times the
> granularity. AND it is clear that the emissions would be about the
> same (remember we are using the same cylinder).
>
> Now add Daves ideas of: fully enclosed road PRT (oops i mean scooters)
> that use electric or hybrid power.  Such vehicles (we call them MoPods
> tm (instead of mopeds) can have much better aerodynamics (and less
> weight too) offering further energy and material savings compared to
> cars and scooters.  In the rain, the MoPod occupants do not get their
> hair and suit messed up on the way to their up-and-coming professional
> job.
>
> (Stay with me now) -- As proven by the California PATH program (of
> automating car lane following / speed / spacing / merge / diverge /
> braking / etc.) lane capacity can be increased by up to 5 times, and
> rush-hour speed doubled by using automation or "intelligent
> transportation" (IT).  Applying this to the "MoPods" could yield
> similar benefits.
>
> Now, hopefully you are all still with me -- now things can get real
> interesting.  Instead of competing with non IT vehicles on roads, what
> if we borrow from what is proven technology in the for-profit ski
> industry?
>
> 1st some BACKGROUND INFO:
> In the early days of down-hill ski areas in the EU and USA, a road was
> built to the top of the mountain and a bus would haul the skiers to
> the top of the hill.  Then it was discovered that a couple of cables
> with a bunch glorified lawn chairs tied on could do a much faster and
> more convenient job of moving people to the top of the hill at much
> less cost than a road, bus, and driver.  Ski areas adopting cable
> suspended automated people movers made a lot more money, and soon that
> was all that survived.  Skiers were happy (no waiting for another 29
> skiers to fill the bus, much faster, cheaper ticket cost, and they did
> not have to risk catching the flu from the one sick guy on the hill).
>
> What if such "ski lift" cables could be suspended across cities, on
> existing buildings, electric poles, bridges, and light poles?  What if
> such cable suspended systems had means for automatically attaching to
> the top of a MoPod such that the MoPod could be carried several km
> across the city -- above all the cars and buses competing for space of
> the streets below?  What if the MoPods could be released from the
> cable on to a ramp at any bus stop along the cable route without
> disrupting the trip of 29 other users?  What if they could be "picked
> up" in like manner from any "bus stop"?  What if the cable would
> charge your batteries as it carried you in your own MoPod?   What if
> this could be built for less than a tenth of the cost of building a
> special bus lane?
>
> Some of the many cost advantages compared to buses and trains are:
> less labor, less energy, less infrastructure, less maintenance, less
> cost per seat (and the user pays this cost -- not the tax payer who
> may not be able to use the system).  From the users perspective, they
> use their own MoPod vehicle for the entire trip -- only using the
> system when it makes sense for them (energy cost, lower per-mile cost,
> and time savings are the main reasons to use the cable suspended
> public part).  Parking is much less of a problem than with cars
> (MoPods are so light weight they can be stood up vertical for minimal
> parking footprint for not much more space needs than a bike).
>
> This is NOT rocket science (but rocket science can be applied too --
> see our ET3 system), aPRT is NOT what it was 30 years ago.   You all
> owe it to your selves as transportation professionals to FULLY
> understand what many of you are unreasonably opposed to -- you might
> even get to keep or improve your jobs (unless you are secretly on the
> payroll of outmoded train or bus manufactures)!
>
> Now what if your MoPod could drive into an empty ET3 capsule and be
> automatically routed to any major city on earth in 4 hours or less
> (while using less than 1/50th as much electrical energy per passenger
> as the most efficient electric train or electric car)? THE "REAL" aPRT
> STANDS UP!  Don't just blast it with emotion based arguments -- get
> out you calculators (or slide rules if i have some of you pegged
> right), and prove that trains, buses, and bikes are better than the
> real PRT.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Daryl Oster
> (c) 2011 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth",
> e-tube, e-tubes, & the logos thereof are trademarks & service marks of
> et3.com Inc. For licensing contact:POB 1423 Crystal River FL 34423-1423
> cell:(352)257-1310 Skype:daryl.oster  et3 at et3.com  www.et3.com  et3.net
> All information included or attached is intended only for the recipient
> and is confidential unless otherwise noted.
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 2:50 AM, eric britton <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
> wrote:
> > Nice Dave, Couple of quick points to your observations follow:
> >
> > 1.       The W/S reference on this is
> >
> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/29/op-ed-will-the-real-prt-please-
> > stand-up/
> >
> >
> >
> > 2.       I hope that I did not say that I thought that the M2W solution
> was
> > Nirvana, in terms of energy efficiency, emissions, driver behavior,
> > encumbrance, safety or whatever of these zooming beasts. What I was
> trying
> > to convey is that they are a fact, that their modal share is growing,
> that
> > people chose to go with them for their own excellent individual reasons,
> and
> > that warts and all they get their owner/passengers where they want to do,
> > when they want to go there, and at a price that defies all competition. I
> > was trying to be descriptive, neutral,  and non-judgmental. But also not
> > entirely blind to their reality.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3.       What I would dearly like to see now is a certain number of
> cities
> > giving the example for making what the people have voted for with their
> > wallets and their bottoms, a better deal all around.  This will of course
> > take them to matters such as size, type and performance of the engines,
> > provision of road space for safety and efficiency when they are moving,
> some
> > kind of rationalization when it comes to parking, and a real policy about
> > enforcement.
> >
> > I have often maintained  that, like it or not, that people are smarter
> than
> > government, and that the wise government will realize that and is ready
> to
> > work with the people and their expressed interests, not only as
> individuals
> > and today, but for society as a whole and for the long term.  That's our
> > responsibility as policy makers/advisors, and that's a job that really
> does
> > need to be done.
> >
> >
> >
> > Will the real city ready to take the lead and show the way please stand
> up.
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric Britton
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Eric,
> >
> >
> >
> > You do like to throw out these zingers on Friday, don' t you?
> >
> >
> >
> > You make a VERY good point about bicycles and scooters being the original
> > PRT.  Traffic congestion in these cities is NOT being caused by scooters.
> >
> >
> >
> > That said, I think you're being too charitable calling scooter engines
> > "pretty efficient".   Possibly, "relatively fuel efficient" compared to a
> 1
> > or 2 ton automobile but even 100 mpg for a scooter compared to 30 mpg for
> a
> > small car doesn't seem very efficient to me (sorry all, I don't have the
> > Liters per 100 KM conversion).  But the worst thing that even the 4 cycle
> > engines pollute like crazy compared to any current generation gasoline
> > vehicle!
> >
> >
> >
> > Given the large numbers of very similar scooter designs, it has always
> > baffled me that Asian governments haven't provided some incentives for
> some
> > to sell retrofit kits for the biggest selling models for electricity or
> at
> > least natural gas, and, of course, provide incentives for people to buy
> them
> > (or offer a scooter scrap program).
> >
> >
> >
> > I understand that in the middle point of the economic ladder people don't
> > want the wind (and sun and rain) in their hair when they're traveling.
>  So
> > why aren't there aren't more partially enclosed scooter designs to serve
> the
> > lower end of the market?
> >
> >
> >
> > For better and worse, we (in every country) are constrained by the
> > categories of vehicles that get defined in our laws.  In the US we could
> use
> > a legal definition of a practical medium speed vehicle that could be
> > manufactured and sold for $6,000 - $8,000 (remember the itMoves?
> > http://itmoves.us/pages/product
> >
> >
> >
> > That's my 2¢ for Friday!
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Brook
> >
> > Portland, Oregon
> >
> > Web: www.carsharing.us
> >
> > Twitter: carsharing_us
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 29, 2011, at 12:42 AM, eric britton wrote:
> >
> > Somebody wake me up on this please.
> >
> > 1.       If we look on the streets of any city in the Global South, we
> see
> > PRT, personal rapid transport, all over the place.
> >
> > 2.       In the form of cheap motorized two wheelers with pretty
> > energy-efficient engines, enough road space to get the trip done,  and
> free
> > parking right next to where you want to go.
> >
> > 3.       There is no way that the old mid-20th century PRT folks can even
> > start to compete with that.
> >
> > 4.       But if this is the on-street reality, which of course it is,
> please
> > show me the city or research program that is showing the way in getting
> the
> > most out of this stubborn reality.
> >
> > 5.       Who is making the best things about it better yet?
> >
> > 6.       And who is getting some kind of control of the worst?
> >
> > We need a new policy paradigm for this, let's call it, the people's PRT.
>  Of
> > course it's part of the problem, but it is also clear that it is a major
> > part of the solution, as anyone with even an ounce of experience and
> common
> > sense can see.  And policy makers, advisors and proponents of sustainable
> > cities we will continue to ignore it at our peril.
> >
> > Take the city of Kaohsiung as just one salient example: 1.5 million
> people,
> > 1.2 million scooters, and something like three quarters of the modal
> split.
> > And all this in parallel with an absolutely gorgeous new state of the art
> > six billion dollar metro that started to go out of business on Day 1 of
> its
> > opening and ever since, because it simply cannot compete in terms of trip
> > time, convenient or price.
> >
> > Shouldn't we be working on this – along with the on-street reality
> options
> > such as BRT, HOV access, parking control, strategic speed control, safe
> > walking and cycling, and all that we know are parts of the solution --
> > instead of wasting our time with these long disproven, whack-a-mole PRT
> > proposals that clearly have no place in our cities
> >
> > How to get the message across to the policy makers and politicians?
> >
> > This has been good fun, but Brendan Finn has it right. These PRT
> enthusiasts
> > are distracting us at a time when we need all our brains and focus for
> the
> > real stuff.  Out they go.
> >
> > Eric Britton
> >
> > Some reference points:
> >
> > ·         Sustran list comments -
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/message/6637
> >
> > ·         World Streets article of 26 April- http://wp.me/psKUY-1A9
> >
> > ·         CityFix article of 27 April-
> > http://thecityfix.com/can-pod-cars-transform-traffic-in-delhi/
> >
> > ·         Facebook group -
> > http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_217653324914604
> >
> > ·         World Streets Poll -
> >
> http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/prt-proposal-for-delhi-convince
> > s-chief-minister-but-does-it-convince-you-see-poll-results/
> >
> > (Note on the poll results: It has in the last 24 hours been contaminated
> by
> > no less than 106 visits from a single Comcast Cable site in one city in
> the
> > United States, with the result that  exactly 65 votes have been recorded
> in
> > favor of PRT as a solution from the one site. Now that's interesting.)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> > http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
> >
> > ================================================================
> > SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').