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

[E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm]

The Luddites could not allow that -- how would the loom workers know
it was time to wake up?  :-#

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Dr Adhiraj Joglekar
<adhiraj.joglekar at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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').
>



-- 
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.