[sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up
Jonathan Richmond
richmond at alum.mit.edu
Thu May 5 15:21:09 JST 2011
Zegras comes out with the tired "technology will solve it approach."
Do a scientific assessment and you will have the answer, he supposes.
Alas, this does not work. First of all, there is no such thing as a
neutral assessment. Assumptions must be made and there is no scientific
way to choose them: read the work of Wachs and Dimitriou on this subject
if you have any doubt.
Secondly, technical assessments are rarely of interest to decision makers
who have generally made up their minds on the basis of other criteria --
in fact, such assessments are more often than not made in support of a
particular viewpoint than in an effort at supposed neutrality.
Thirdly, why should resources be spent on Zegras's imagined "bi-partisan"
assessment (even were such a thing possible) when there are so many other
pressing demands in the developing world? How can such an expenditure be
justified compatred, for example, to a project to assess the potential
for non-motorized transport in the developing countries of the future?
And who is supposed to come up with the money for the project?
What Zegras will find is that coming up with a "vision" is dangerous in
itself. The visual appeal will be taken as a model and the technical
results count for little. And why do we want a technological vision put
forward by Western academics anyway? Would it not make more sense to
adopt a more modest approach and visit cities in question to talk to
residents -- including the poorest ones, not only the ones that might
enjoy a high-tech marvel -- and develop a vision based on local
understandings and needs?
--Jonathan
On Wed, 4 May 2011, P. Christopher Zegras wrote:
> First, deep thanks to Paul Barter for sending out his kindly diplomatic email reminder
of the purposes, audience, rules and etiquette of this great list-serve.
>
> Hopefully we can dispense with the name-calling. The world needs futurists, the world
needs realists, etc. - we need diversity (in all its forms), since from diversity comes
our only hope of ingenuity and sustainability.
>
> Personally, and at the risk of violating sustran's rules myself: I find it ironic that
someone with a clear commercial interest in a particular technology accuses others with
no explicit commercial interest of being cronies to some industrial interest or another.
>
> I believe that the value of this debate can best be extracted with an honest
intellectual collaboration among the two sides. First, basic empirical fact should
be determined: the recent article posted for Bangalore ("Will Bangalore take a call on
POD after Gurgaon experiment?") showed exactly the perpetuation of half-truths
(or outright falsehoods- e.g, we know Heathrow's PRT [all 3.9 km!] is still not working;
NYC and "many places in US" have PRT! Please show me where, I'd love to go for a ride;
etc.), which one can only logically conclude comes from the industry promoters themselves.
>
> But, for this forum's purposes, what I believe really needs to be carried out is a
serious, "bi-partisan", assessment of this technology's capability to provide a
near-term solution to the developing world's mobility challenge. How, in practice,
could PRT (whatever variant one wants to look at) actually serve the complex demands
under the complex constraints of a city like Mexico City or Arequipa or Bangalore or
Shenzen or Abidjan, or wherever): how many nodes, how much
infrastructure, etc. etc. \ One thing is to lay out a generic vision of
ski chair-lift\ inspired cable PODs running across a city - but,
regurgitating\ a place-less vision will not convince the doubters. The
\vision NEEDS to be grounded with an actual simulation (need not be
sophisticated\ - show me a convincing spreadsheet model) of the
application to a\ REAL place, with REAL OD flows, with all the REAL
constraints\ (physical, cultural, financial). Naturally, for the PRT side
this \is a challenge due to the dearth of any successful real-world applications;
but, I believe a sketched vision on actual empirics would go a long way towards
providing some initial answers.
>
> Until we see such an analysis, it is, for me anyway, difficult to assess the value of PRT technology for the developing world. And, despite Mr. Oster's calls for others to get out the "slide rules" to "prove" any other modes are better than "real PRT," I believe the burden of proof falls squarely on him. The other modes are "real;" I'd like to see revolutionary improvements over the "real" modes, but real improvements are not evidenced in patent filings, web-sites, franchisees and prosaic images of ski lifts across the urban landscapes (oh what a sight it would be - an MRG-inspired single chair spanning Mumbai in the monsoon season!) - but by realistic portraits of practical implementation in real place.
>
> Personally, I believe the un-tethered digital, real-time, distributed computing, ad-hoc sensored world of the 21st Century will seriously disadvantage any infrastructure-intensive tethered mobility solutions. But, that's just a hypothesis; I'd be happy to see it rejected.
>
> And, now Mr. Luddite needs to sign off this computer-thingy and get on my 2-wheeled human-pedal-powered contraption for a nice ride home in a Boston Springtime "monsoon"...
>
> Kind wishes, Chris Zegras
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: E T 3 Space Travel On Earth tm [mailto:et3 at et3.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:19 AM
> To: Dr Adhiraj Joglekar
> Cc: transport-innovators at googlegroups.com; sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] Re: Will the real PRT please stand up
>
> 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-pr
>>>> t-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.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 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').
-----
Jonathan Richmond
Bangladesh number: +880 (0)1714 179013
US number: +1 617 395-4360
e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
More information about the Sustran-discuss
mailing list