Personal rapid transit

[Aeson]

Well, a rail system does allow for easier directional control of each vehicle. Basically it just needs to be told when to turn, and otherwise there's only one way it can go. A car on autopilot on the other hand has to be making adjustments constantly. (Sincef we're assuming current infrastructure).

I personally wouldn't like an above-ground rail-based PRT system, but PRT of some sort is definitely the way to go... eventually.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva


But the problem arises when one of them breaks down and the guys behind can't get by. It' fine if there's a grid, but that doesn't help the people behind the broken down car.

And also, since we're talking about thousands of cars here, whenever a car needs to get on to a main track from an on-ramp, all the others will need to slow down, and this "wave" will be propagated back throughout the entire network, for each car.

... and this is different from the current method how?

Freeway onramps/offramps are a HUGE problem, with this exact cause ... but the thing is, if it were computer controlled, it wouldn't have nearly the trouble because cars would just be routed in and out instead of having lane jumpers screw everything up, and the "brake light effect" which causes a slowdown any time the front cars hit their brakes in a much larger proportion to the actual braking.

PRT would be wonderful, and something i've thought about many times. I suspect it's something that would have to be done in one city, somewhere, like copenhagen or some other mid-sized progressive city just to prove it could work, and then it might take off all over the place

[:) Smiley]

the problem with PRT is that it requires lots of infrastructure if it is to compete with cars. For example, it had better go to my garage, or at least the front of my house, if it were to be preferable to driving. It also would need to go to every place I need to go.

Basically, PRT is a dated concept from the age of cheap construction and primitive electronics. The concept of automation for improved safety and flow works, though, and could be applied to regular cars in the near future.

[DanS]

Re: Personal rapid transit

Originally posted by Thue
Personal rapid transit (PRT) is an alternative to cars and railroads. Very cool, could be the future of land transport. I don't understand why it isn't being pushed more. Try reading this article: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...458893,00.html

As pointed out by Smiley, it doesn't make any sense because the same thing could be done better by automated automobile driving on existing infrastructure, manufactured using mature technology, and according to established tastes.

[Aeson]

Eventually I think it does make sense to have a more "rail-like" system though. Even if it's using cars on pavement. Whatever sequencing and route-finding for individual vehicles that this system used should be applicable. It's only the directional control (which for cars is going to be much more complex) that will differ.

[axi]

Rail is good only for being more efficient for cargo and easier to steer.

Future cities will feature less autos and more automatic (robotic) taxis. Plug-in electrics of course. And more mass transit.

[Thue]

Re: Re: Personal rapid transit

Originally posted by DanS


As pointed out by Smiley, it doesn't make any sense because the same thing could be done better by automated automobile driving on existing infrastructure, manufactured using mature technology, and according to established tastes.

That ignores advantages like pollution, safety, and non-cluttering of roads.

At least it would make sense to make PRT systems instead of the current subways/city railways.

The fact that making subways makes enough economic sense for them to be made, even if some of them cost 90M€/km, also indicates to me that PRTwould make economic sense.

[Proteus_MST]

I think the future of transportation will involve computer controlled electocabs movin on publis streets (maybe such in the movie "Total Recall").

I agree with the others that PRT will most likely be too expensive.

[OzzyKP]

Re: Re: Re: Personal rapid transit

Originally posted by Thue


That ignores advantages like pollution, safety, and non-cluttering of roads.

To get any environmental damage you assume a lot. This whole system would run on electricity, and you just threw in there that it'd run on solar or something, which isn't something you should just assume. But if we could assume that we'd just naturally switch away from fossil fuels to build this huge new transport system, wouldn't it just be easier to build electric cars?


btw, is anyone else thinking of another personal transport system?

[Odin]

IMO the money used in building the infrastructure for PRT could be better used in designing electric cars that can go for long distances without charge-ups. So I agree with Ozzie.

[Thue]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal rapid transit

Originally posted by OzzyKP
To get any environmental damage you assume a lot. This whole system would run on electricity, and you just threw in there that it'd run on solar or something, which isn't something you should just assume. But if we could assume that we'd just naturally switch away from fossil fuels to build this huge new transport system, wouldn't it just be easier to build electric cars?

Electric cars have not taken off because the batteries are big, heavy, and expensive. That may or may not change in the future, but the technology for PRT with energy supplied in the rails already exists today.

I did also mention nuclear power.

[Ninot]

Nuts to this, I still want my hover car.

Back to the Future 2 is a horrible tease.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Odin
IMO the money used in building the infrastructure for PRT could be better used in designing electric cars that can go for long distances without charge-ups. So I agree with Ozzie.

Electric cars don't need much designing. You're talking in the 8-figures, and they're already on the market.

[Datajack Franit]

Subways, as they are, are still the best solution, as they transport millions of commuters each year and take them away from the surface. At the moment, subway lines are still not widely enough used, as a single line is enough to cover the needs of 500,000 inhabitants. How many 500,000 cities are there that don't have any subway line yet? If Paris is crowded, let them build just more lines, instead of wasting money for this.

[DanS]

Subways don't make sense in the vast majority of areas in the U.S.