Pod People Wage War on Light Rail, Other Reality-Based Transpo Projects
Writer, cartoonist, cyclist and transit advocate Ken Avidor points us to this video, which he used in a recent Daily Kos diary entry. Writes Ken:
The Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) Pod People are always challenging me to prove that PRT promoters are anti-Light Rail Transit (LRT). Here is a video by one of these libertarian, "free-market" guys claiming LRT is old and expensive and PRT is more modern and won’t cost the taxpayers a dime. The fact is PRT is a Nixon-era concept and there is no evidence to prove it can pay for itself.
PRT, Avidor says on his "PRT Is a Joke" website, is often used as a "stalking horse" to undermine the funding and build-out of real-world mass transit projects. Its supporters include Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who, among other transgressions, opposes the expansion of that state’s Northstar commuter rail line.
Judging from the above video, trashing new light rail service in Phoenix, the thrust of the pro-PRT argument goes something like this:
Dude! It goes like a hundred miles an hour! You wouldn’t have to read books or sit beside weird people — AND you could listen to AC/DC!
On your iPod, of course.
Corey, the PRT guys aren’t interested in actually building a working PRT system… they just want to argue and waste time…. the video in this post is about the imaginary “flavors of PRT” called Beamways and Skytran, but they switch the subject to ULTra. When you point out the obvious flaws of ULTra that keep it from being the “Revolution in Transportation” they claim, they will switch the subject to Vectus or some other system or start whining about the few critics who bother to document out how bogus PRT is.
The PRT guys don’t just move the goal-posts, they put the goal-posts on roller-skates.
The interesting and very real story is how this small movement (and it’s really just a few guys) manage to get so much of their hype into the mainstream media and gain access to politicians and public $$$ when reality-based grassroots bike, pedestrian and transit advocates have to beg for money and MSM coverage.
The real interesting story is how PRT is used as a stalking horse by the highway guys and their buddies to block environmental, grassroots opposition to highway expansion, airport expansion and other godawful stuff.
Where do they get all that money for the publicity campaign with the slick, “futuristic” CGI videos? Why are elected officials (who always complain that there is no money for reality based transit or even small stuff like bike racks etc. still throwing $$$ away on PRT?
For example. why is $75,000 of NY State taxpayers’ money being spent on a PRT study?… New York lawmakers could have saved the taxpayers that money and just download the PDF of the useless study of PRT that New Jersey wasted $75,000 on in 2007. How many bike racks could that $$$ have bought?
#98, we’ve addressed this several times. First, there will be higher station density, and hence each station will have to load fewer passengers to achieve the same total throughput. Second, have you ever seen how much space parking takes up at an airport? Thousands upon thousands of personal automobiles sit there waiting each day, just so that their owners can have convenient transport back home after their return flight. A PRT that services areas feeding an airport will eliminate the need for many times as much parking space as it uses as passenger loading space. Further, if a particular point-to-point route witnesses a relatively large passenger throughput (such as between an airport and a major bus or rail terminal–hello intermodal transport), that is likely enough justification to use larger (perhaps 6-20 passenger) vehicles on that route, at least during busier times of day.
As for not being able to do “last mile” to garages, conventional transit can’t do that for most people either. But having it reach even half a mile away from most people’s driveways is better than having it be several miles away, if it’s even available at all. The only things that would rival PRT in suburban penetration are suburban buses and taxis. A suburban bus is quite a sad thing–the passenger load is so light most times of day that it could just as well be accomplished by a passenger van, and the resulting wait between arrivals is enough to make some people give up and walk. Taxis are great–door to door service, nonstop except for traffic–but there is generally a wait to be picked up, and of course the service is relatively expensive because you have a human driver. Then there’s bicycling, of course, which I’m completely in favor of, but if you have to bike more than half a mile to get to your nearest transit system you’re probably wary of the extra time it is adding to your journey, and there is also the issue of being able to securely park your bike without it being stolen or vandalized (the solution to this problem exists but has yet to be widely adopted). Being able to take your bike with you on transit helps but is often forbidden during rush hour, which isn’t so great for those who wish to bike-commute on transit.
All that said, I am glad that you’re using actual physics and math to make your argument rather than ad hom attacks and such. This is the kind of discussion that is appropriate when discussing alternative transit options–the pros and cons of each technology, rather than who’s promoting what for what alleged ulterior motive.
Oh wow. This PRT stuff just doesn’t quit does it. At least these folks are good for some comic relief from time time. “If we lived in a free market system. . .” What, we might see some version of a vision from Le Corbusier complete with flying pods and moving sidewalks?
All to reinforce separation of land uses and social isolation so the PRT/highway interests can continue to profit from developing remote land in the most inefficient manner known to mankind. A little piece of Dubai in the PRT la la land. Jump on the pod!
gecko, it’s great that your bike is your PRT vehicle (mine too, for the time being), but you’re probably not going to ride it 40 miles to work each day.
Matthew, the deed is already done. Half of Americans already live in suburbs. Are you suggesting a mass exodus into the cities to solve our transit issue? Are you going to pay everyone’s moving expenses and rent? Doesn’t it make more sense to add desirable transit options where people already are, helping them to ditch their cars and use multi-modal transit? The effect of having a PRT station every few blocks is no different than the effect of having a bus station every few blocks, except that it’s a lot more energy efficient and cheaper, and people will actually want to use it because it doesn’t take half an hour to go five miles. Its great that you see alternate transit proposals as fodder for your stand-up act but some of us here are actually interested in solving problems.
There you go. anonymous just made my point for me. Thanks.
Your point was that PRT is pro-TOD? I’m glad.
For an example of the usefulness of PRT, one need look no further than the Tom Cruise film Minority Report, which presents other likely and desirable visions of the future including breakfast cereals that yell at you at home, and the permanent waterboarding of a psychic woman so that the police can charge anyone with murder at will.
Hey look at these things Ben Fried posted in “Today’s Headlines”:
“The Feds Are Running Out of Money to Invest in Transportation, Again (NYT, WSJ)”
“A Sad Tale of NYC Bus System Dysfunction (2nd Ave Sagas)”
I guess he must be anti-transit since he doubts the continued will of politicians to fund transit projects with public money and thinks that NYC bus service is dysfunctional.
Corey, FWIW, the hypothetical PRT system in Masder will be underground. I think they are planning to put in light rail and regional rail either elevated or at grade.
I can’t believe I scanned all those comments. This is my first encounter with pod wars. Anyway, I am going to wait until the cost benefit analysis is complete on the hoverboard sharing program before I make my decision.
Speak of the devil, Streetsblog points me to a guy who actually does bike 40 miles to work each day.
First of all, this guy is my hero. But second, listen to the reasons he gives for biking instead of taking commuter rail:
Reporter: “He was spending more than $300 a month on his train ticket and an hour and a half of time each way, not to mention time spent fighting crowds and waiting for the train.”
Cyclist: “Riding, it takes us 30 minutes longer, two hours on the bike.”
That’s right, it only takes him 30 minutes more to ride the 40 miles to Manhattan on his bike than by taking the train. When you add the time to drive or bike to the train station and wait for the train, it’s probably closer to a dead heat (though he does take extra time to store his bike and shower once he gets to NYC).
The fact that his 20mph bike ride can rival a commuter train in travel time says a lot about the state of conventional transit today. Of course, not everyone is able or willing to bike 40 miles to and from work each day. But if they had an automated car service that drove them (and their bike, if they wish) nonstop to Manhattan on grade-separated tracks (which could be laid on or next to an existing freeway to reduce cost) at an average speed of, say, 60mph, getting them to within a few blocks of their workplace in well under an hour, without having to worry about parking a vehicle, gridlock, or having to hop buses or subways, I bet a lot of people would decide to leave their cars at home and take this instead.
As for hoverboard sharing, that would be awesome. And yes, cost-benefit analyses are always necessary to warrant developing and testing new technologies. I just ask that we actually do the analysis rather than dismiss ideas offhand. Pedestrianizing Broadway to improve traffic is a bit counter-intuitive and faced a lot of negative gut reactions from drivers, but there is sound technical rationale for trying the idea out. And as I’ve said before, even if PRT itself is an unworkable dream, many of its ideas (none of which themselves are new) can be used to improve the desirability of existing transit systems. That’s good for everyone. Except car makers, of course.
Gosh, snark is so easy and fun, isn’t it? Waterboarding, hoverboards, crazy libertarians, social isolation — is this the best argument against a technology you all can come up with?
Having lived in many places throughout my life, including Manhattan, I would share with you New York folks that you might wish to leave the island once in a while. Manhattan is probably the least applicable place for PRT, and its also about the only place in the entire United States of any appreciable size in which the use of automobiles for daily movement is in the minority.
Perhaps if you went to other cities — not suburbs — and saw the kind of transit that people in those places have to deal with, because they don’t have the kind of densities you have and aren’t fortunate that their city made major investments in heavy rail (subways) a long time ago, then perhaps you might start to see how dead-end traditional mass transit is if one is actually serious about eventually eliminating automobiles as the primary form of personal transportation in this country.
This may come as a shock to you all, but technology evolves. No one laments the loss of horses as the primary means of faster-than-human travel. If you read “100 year in the future” pieces in 1900, you would have seen all these visions of bigger and faster trains, and very little about automobiles. Yet which technology ended up dominating the world in the 20th Century?
This can’t be made clear enough, but seems to fall on deaf ears, but most of us (minus the cranks) are very supportive of other modalities, particularly in the present day. I personally, intentionally, lived car-free for many years. I even went bike-free for a year simply to see what it would be like to be dependent only on walking and occasionally transit. And I wasn’t living in the central part of a major city, either.
People who get drawn to this technology do so, many times, because they have a tremendous amount of real-world experience with public transit in a variety of places. And with cars. And with biking. And with walking. And with average people. If one actually isn’t just consumed with their own little constructs, one would begin to realize that fantasizing about everyone biking or getting on big buses is lunatic. It’s not ever, in a million years, going to happen.
I’ve seen light rail systems take 20 years or more to get built, and when they’re on the cusp of construction, it’s different liberal interests groups getting in to the process and crapping all over the design of the line — adding unnecessary stops, putting maintenance facilities in the middle of reviving urban neighborhoods, claiming LRT is going to divide their community like interstates did 50 years ago. It’s nuts. And that’s what it takes to build just one 12 mile segment of LRT in a normal American city.
I absolutely agree that some of these PRT advocates can be abrasive and single-minded. I also agree that the right-wing nuts like Michelle Bachmann, or the guy in this video, can be repulsive. But if those people all of a sudden fervently supported your favorite modality (eg, biking) would that then make biking some lunatic idea? Of course not.
So, please, if you’re actually a mature person, try and discuss the IDEA, not traffic in childish snark about Terminator, hoverboards, and LaRouchian whackjobs barking at the moon.
If you have a realistic solution for marginalizing the automobile for good, particularly in lazy, fat America, I’m sure people are willing to listen.
This blog seems to have a particularly high proportion of luddites. These kinds of people actually believe we can turn back time and return to the days of “Little House on the Prarie”. That’s a nice little Utopian dream, and I wish them all the best in achieving that dream. But what are the rest of the 6 billion people going to do?
So why don’t you retrophiles go off and build your technology-free paradise, and leave us 21st century folks alone so we can actually solve the problems that 6 billion people will face in the coming decades.
ATE, I think the problem is mostly confined to this particular posting, especially given who the source of the “information” is. This blog is generally pretty open to new transportation ideas–after all, the idea of a bike-friendly NYC (one that I am 110% in favor of, the whole reason I subscribe to this blog in the first place) is a bit idealistic itself. I think the anti-PRT comments here are mostly the result of a handful of outsiders (a number of them seem to be from Minnesota) and perhaps some regulars who have been convinced by their argument. I’d just suggest that people research the topic more on their own before coming to a conclusion. At any rate, namecalling isn’t going to help anyone, even if it’s warranted.
“At any rate, namecalling isn’t going to help anyone”
Yeah, the PRT guys always take the high road…
Read the nasty comments on the Dump Bachmann blog from the Project Studies Manager for Advanced Transport Systems Lld, the would-be vendors of ULTra.
these prtistas have really been drinking the kool-aid.
prt is like those infomercials on tv that try to sell you some miracle pill that will solve all your problems, most see it as a scam but a few suckers fall for it. if you want anyone to buy into your magicdust you might want to actually get a demonstration built at disneyland, maybe in toontown or fantasyland?
go run along now to your next blog to take over.
“Yeah, the PRT guys always take the high road…”
Ken, wasn’t “Ned Luddington” the name of the false identity you created to feign support for your anti-PRT campaign? And isn’t Ned Ludd the founder of the original luddite movement?
Since you named your sock puppet after Ned Ludd, I would think you’d be proud to be labelled a luddite. I had no idea you would take offense to that term.
For the record, there is nothing wrong with wanting to live a simple life. The problem I have is your relentless efforts to impose your luddite beliefs upon others, by spreading lies about the new technologies you fear.
Here is a nice post outlining some past encounters with certain PRT critics, who may or may not be part of this current comment thread. I don’t post this out of personal animosity but simply to inform this discussion. There are plenty of valid criticisms of PRT, but not all the criticisms displayed here fall under this category.
Also, I would like to point out that
Also, I would like to point out that it was PRT critics who brought this discussion to this blog, not PRT supporters. And I’ve been reading this blog long before I saw Ken Avidor here.
Video: James Howard Kunstler talking about the PRT guys.
Nate, my Minority Report snark was justified insofar as one should never assume one knows what the best technology is without gauging the public reaction. No one wants cereal boxes screaming at you any more than having your neighbor’s car blocking your view from your 40th-storey window.
I am not an engineer myself, but I did work at a world-class engineering firm for over a year. I worked on reports involving the social complexities of traffic calming, and among other projects the firm worked on was an extension to the rail system in Hong Kong. Along this extension, consideration of feng shui was not some pretty decorative afterthought, but a critical design necessity due to cultural imperative: The firm would lose the account instantly without it.
The unfamiliar has a hard sell. This includes the automobile, first used as mass transit in the eighteen-thirties: It was killed by the rail barons, horsedrawn interests and the simple expense of having to pave the roads. But how it was killed was by propaganda– its opponents put out cartoons showing steam carriages exploding on the open road, and private vehicles with citizens asleep at the “reins”. Nevermind that the railroads had the same tech! It was simply too unfamiliar and in the context of the times it looked bad.
People didn’t know they weren’t ready for cars in the 1830s. People didn’t know they were ready for cars in the 1890s. (Apple Newton? Failure. Apple iPhone? Success! So… where’s the Apple Netbook…?) The point is, very few people are truly luddites, but they know when something fails to fit into their life.
PRT has not proven itself. It will take expense, risk and success for this proof to be manifest, and not an instant sooner. Look, I grew up with Syd Mead illos and rode the monorail in Hershey, Pennsylvania as a kid, and it was a swell glimpse at possibilities. But not every technological idea turns out to be good or useful. Even desperately needed improvements can have gigantic obstacles. The 2nd Ave Subway in Manhattan has taken one. hundred. years. to begin being built. When I was at the engineering firm ten years ago, we didn’t believe it would ever happen.
In Minority Report Tom Cruise had to chase his eyeballs down a corridor in one scene. I hooted derisively aloud in the theatre at that, and I was not alone. The futuristic PRT (a term I had not heard at the time) I found to be the second most ridiculously presented thing in the movie. It does not help PRT’s case. Good luck on that, because it is still up to PRT boosters to build it and make them come.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve forgotten where I’ve parked my Segway, and I have to run.
For the record: the moderator is now restricting pro-PRT posts. This is a common tactic among the anti-PRT crowd: once their arguments are decimated, censor the opposition!
Here is the comment that was suppressed:
Ken Avidor wrote, in response to me calling him a “luddite”: “Yeah, the PRT guys always take the high road…”
Ken, wasn’t “Ned Luddington” the name of the false identity you created to feign support for your anti-PRT campaign? And isn’t Ned Ludd the founder of the original luddite movement?
Since you named your sock puppet after Ned Ludd, I would think you’d be proud to be labelled a luddite. I had no idea you would take offense to that term.
For the record, there is nothing wrong with wanting to live a simple life. The problem I have is your relentless efforts to impose your luddite beliefs upon others, by spreading lies about the new technologies you fear.
… and I torpedoed the Titanic and set fire to the Hindenburg… doesn’t alter the fact that PRT is infeasible… looking forward to the debut of the glorified golf carts of Heathrow later this year.
Looks like this discussion has graced the pages of Streetsblog before, albeit with an actual debate about merits that time. Ian Bicking and ATE provide some really good analyses there which expand the arguments we’ve been making here–in particular, this seems like a good overview of our philosophy. Some Streetsblog regulars raise and debate legitimate concerns. Ken Avidor seems nowhere to be found in that discussion, unless he was using a different name. Bicking and ATE make firm arguments for PRT but are willing to recognize where there are legitimate concerns.
There are really two debates going on here, 1) are existing transit technologies sufficient to move us away from an auto-centric society and 2) is PRT realistic or just fantasy? I’m really more concerned about getting the first argument right than the second. Critics can pooh-pooh past, existing or future PRT projects all they want, but the real question is what solution do they propose to the problem at hand? Or do they not see a car-centric lifestyle as a problem at all?
It’s clear that this discussion is going to go on as long as Ken Avidor has free time, which probably means indefinitely. I suggest that if the site owners really want to stop this endless bickering they should just close this post for commenting and let us all rest in peace. Otherwise it’s going to go on for some time without resolution. Both sides have clearly already made all the points they are reasonably able to make. Let the readers decide for themselves.
… and let you have the last word about PRT in the land of the Torture Sheik?
“In Minority Report Tom Cruise had to chase his eyeballs down a corridor in one scene. I hooted derisively aloud in the theatre at that, and I was not alone. The futuristic PRT (a term I had not heard at the time) I found to be the second most ridiculously presented thing in the movie. It does not help PRT’s case. Good luck on that, because it is still up to PRT boosters to build it and make them come.”
You actually consider this a serious argument? The “PRT” in that movie, if I recall, are large vehicle pods attached to one’s apartment, that then shoot vertically down the building, then end up racing on a paved surface. I also recall that that movie was sponsored by Lexus, with the future Lexus being a four-wheeled driven vehicle that was featured rolling through some bucolic wonderland. Talk about a loaded message.
The fact that you then link this particular take on automated transport with eyeballs rolling down a corridor is pure craziness. There were plenty of bicycles in “Blade Runner,” so are we supposed to reject bicycles because we’re frightened of cyborgs taking over the world?
Make a serious argument, please.
“Make a serious argument, please.”
There ARE no serious arguments against PRT.
“There ARE no serious arguments against PRT.”
That’s what’s absurd. I could easily formulate a coherent, rational, fact-based critique of the drawbacks of the core design principles, and it’s child’s play to take apart any given specific design built on those principles.
Instead, the Internet discussions on this topic are mostly a repetitive litterbox of one amazingly obsessive person on a jihad against a somewhat speculative technology and his handful of regular detractors who slice and dice his horrifically logically fallacious arguments. Any casual outsider to the matter is usually turned off entirely, which actually helps that obsessive person’s agenda, as it usually means people develop a connection between distaste and PRT.
The grand irony of this is that the obsessive detractor is a major supporter of bicycles and transit, yet what is the hands-down biggest killer of cyclists? Cars. Yet a technology with the capability to get us beyond most use of automobiles is the centerpoint of his life, and not in a positive sense, but rather to stoke a discombobulated set of paranoid notions about a grand right-wing conspiracy to ruin the world?
I have to say that it’s quite a sight to behold.
Luckily, time will run its course and the few crazy obsessives will eventually fade as do all humans. And hopefully we all progress a little bit more, despite the backwards efforts at holding back progress.
The pods in Minority Report were multi-functional, able to act as cars but the part that was unique was the PRT-style driverless mode where occupants were shuttled along that “last mile” (in the movie’s case, to the highway). The only “link” I made to the eyeball scene was the absurdity I felt in seeing them.
My point stands, since the sponsored car/pods in that movie are what first came to mind when I saw these videos. Until it’s a reality, people aren’t convinced. Hey, a city full of Segways might work. Bicycles had to have organizations to back their use, and still do. It’s hard enough to push existing devices like these, but if no one can see or use a tech, you’re just arguing on the internet, and the Catch-22 of convincing the public (and investors) stands firm.
BTW, Nate, see how easily distracted you were by my mere referring to the movie? That. I made a solid point about how problematic real-world acceptance of transportation tech is, and you chose to fuss over my pretty snark. Try addressing the issue.
(…I know someone built an amphibious car around here somewhere… but don’t get distracted by it…)
Hey remember that time you guy said it takes so long to get 40 miles to work? That was a good time… but more seriously, who’s going to help me with my 1000 mile commute? I mean I would move to LA but its so much nicer to live in Maine. I mean why would you want to live close to your work anyway, its only the one place you go the most other than your home. Come to think of it living really far from where you live would be sweet too. Any one got any ideas on a jetpack or lunchbox that can help me do that? What if my house was on top of a really high post that way when my jetpod gets me to my address I’m still miles from home and I can use my personal elevator? O and can you put a treadmill in the pod so I can get some exercise while I make my transcontinental commute?
This is some really great brainstorming guys!
“Any casual outsider to the matter is usually turned off entirely, which actually helps that obsessive person’s agenda, as it usually means people develop a connection between distaste and PRT.”
I have grappled with this issue myself. Is it better to engage the propagandist in debate or ignore him entirely? There’s a school of thought that it’s best to just ignore him.
But it’s been 5 years now, and he’s just as obsessive as ever. And let’s face it, he DID basically destroy PRT in Minnesota with his ridiculous campaign – that’s the problem with transit, it’s so politicized that it’s all too easy for an obsessive vocal minority to turn good ideas into political poison. Highway promoters have done this for years against traditional transit, and Avidor now does it against advanced transit.
So for something like PRT, a politically-entwined issue which few people really understand, I think it’s a necessity to provide the rational view wherever the propagandist pops up. I realize that the true believers will always parrot whatever Avidor tells them, regardless of the rational arguments presented to oppose his rhetoric. They’ll always believe his lies because they think he’s on “their side”. But I’m not worried about the Avidor disciples – many of them are Avidor sock puppets anyways. 🙂
My reason for following Avidor around is to educate any rational readers who happen to stop by. The true believers will never be convinced, but if even one open-minded reader sees my response and thus recognizes Avidor’s dirty deceptions, then it’s all worth it.
I’ve seen it happen personally. Alameda, CA, for example, had a PRT debate after New Urbanist Peter Calthorpe proposed it during a public meeting. Ken Avidor was quickly on the scene, telling some local blogger he was an Alameda resident and spreading his dirt. I (and others) showed up and provided the typical Avidor debunking, and thereafter a few of the locals seemed to be more open to the idea. The attitude went from “paranoid suspicion of a conspiracy” to “reasonable skepticism towards a new but promising technology”. That’s all I’m hoping to achieve. The brilliant engineers in UK, UAE, Sweden, Korea, etc, will do the rest.
Speaking of Catch-22s, you’re basically dismissing an idea before the idea is implemented. I hope you realize the absurdity of that position, as nothing would ever change in life if everyone thought like that.
At some point, a certain amount of people have to take a risk with an idea to try and make it work. As is obvious and as many have pointed out, the initial efforts at a given technology often are crude and ahead of their time.
For example, the core concept of carsharing has been around as long as cars. Attempts to formally organize carsharing institutions started decades ago. Only within perhaps the past 5 years has there been any real traction with the innovation in the United States, and it only really got launched in a serious manner here about 10 years ago.
How foolish would one look if one had taken the reactionary, hysterical, logically fallacious approach taken by the main detractor here, yet done it with respect to carsharing in 1995? Believe me, I encountered such people then and they are no different from the obsessive “skeptic(s)” here. One way or another, automated personal transportation will replace the automobile as the dominant form of transportation. It just will, no matter how you or I feel about it, because it’s the obvious next step in transportation evolution. It wasn’t possible 30-40 years ago, when people really started dreaming these things up, because we simply didn’t have the computing and communication capabilities we have now, in addition to many of the great safety technologies developed in that time. We also didn’t face the energy, pollution, and population realities that we have now.
Like I said, what exactly is the harm in debating the merit of an idea? How can that be so threatening to some people? It’s not like the alternatives to the automobile (and other dominant modes) have had presented any meaningful challenge to it, and it’s actually impossible for them to do so, unless of course you want to speak about forcing the vast majority of humankind to depopulate where they live. And even then, it still would be a clumsy solution.
A.T.E.: “Avidor disciples – many of them are Avidor sock puppets anyways.”
Avidor: Not true. I’ve posted here only under my own name.
A.T.E.: “Ken Avidor was quickly on the scene, telling some local blogger he was an Alameda resident “
Avidor: I responded to a post on a form that automatically said I was from Alameda. I asked the moderator to correct it. No attempt to pass myself off as a resident.
Here are all the Action Alameda blog posts about the SunCal’s PRT proposal.
#104, anonymous, “gecko, it’s great that your bike is your PRT vehicle (mine too, for the time being), but you’re probably not going to ride it 40 miles to work each day.”
Response:
Piece of cake in an advanced public bicycle system.
Regarding the idea that Avidor killed PRT in Minnestoa:
I think Michelle Bachmann, Dean Zimmermann, and Mark Olsen, et al (all PRT Proponents) did a fine job of killing PRT in Minnesota on their own. But then again, what would I know?
I’m apparently just a Ken Avidor “sock puppet” commenting along with my own account, my own name, and even a photo. . .
Matthew Lang, are you actually proud that oft-debunked cartoonist who supplied your opinion on this issue is in direct opposition to people who are actually working on PRT? In opposition to people like the employees at huge, award winning design companies like Foster & Partners, Arup, and C2HM Hill? These are the people that built many of the bridges and rail lines we use every day, and yet you discount them for the words of a single cartoonist. Are you proud of that fact?
Because, to be honest, I’d rather be a sock puppet than a brain puppet.
And if you think Avidor wasn’t a big part of the reason for PRT’s failure in Minnesota, you just aren’t paying attention. No politician could even MENTION PRT in Minneapolis without being slammed in every single local blog and forum. I can remember one Minnesota-area Democrat (her name escapes me) who tried to take an open-minded stance on PRT. Avidor came down so hard with his “pod squad” crap that she quickly abandoned her position. No politician dares mention PRT in Minnesota, especially Democrats who rely on support from the liberal bloggers whom Avidor would taint. Your claim that it was those 3 politicians that killed it sounds like it came right from Avidor’s lips.
So Matthew, I suggest you open your eyes and start forming your own opinions. If you actually researched this issue as I have, you might come to regret how you have proudly, and carelessly, signed your name to Avidor’s views.
There’s no harm debating the merits of an idea, but a sober debate must face the reality that humans are not entirely rational and are not generally governed by technocrats.
Carsharing is a business model, not an innovative tech. People knew what cars and sharing were going in. Some may have decried it, but making the experiment was going to be a quick reveal as to whether it worked, because of the preexisting infrastructure and predictable outlay for financing. That is to say, the Segway really is more comparable than carsharing to PRT, as it was a tech gamble.
Convincing people of the need and means of paying for constructing a transit system has always been laborious, even during the heyday of the rail barons. (Perhaps the Russian czars could command bridges and roads to be built at his command, but it wasn’t so much for the serfs’ benefit.)
“One way or another, automated personal transportation will replace the automobile as the dominant form of transportation. It just will, no matter how you or I feel about it, because it’s the obvious next step in transportation evolution.”
Inevitablity is not a wise position to employ in most arguments, let alone one with an untried, complex technology. MIT’s lithium breakthrough has plenty of innovators reimagining the electric automobile. And, people like the freedom of cars, an ancient sentiment the automobile inherited from animal-powered transport. I doubt that feeling of personal power will be easily “evolved” out.
I suppose the issue is whether the granularity of a fixed-track transport is warranted– is a station every 100 yards worthwhile? If a mistake is made in estimating an area’s popularity or projected density, would the very decentralization of the system cause it to be unable to drive traffic– an essential element in municipal and commercial planning? I genuinely don’t mean to deride when I say that the Heathrow experiment can prove nothing of the value of PRT elsewhere, because of the contained nature of airports. The monorail at JFK is excellent, but it is a creation suited to its place.
Finally, your comments “We also didn’t face the energy, pollution, and population realities that we have now” and “unless of course you want to speak about forcing the vast majority of humankind to depopulate where they live” suggest a possible lack of historical perspective. Terms like “ecological crisis”, “energy crisis” and “population bomb” (and “carpooling”) are clearly 40 years old– the USA’s national Peak Oil occurred around 1970 and we’ve been not-facing it ever since. As for redistribution of population, I imagine the Industrial Revolution and the early railroads got folks noticing that that was happening, and it’s been quite a game for capitalists to hide the ongoing upheavals ever since. If a people is lucky, it has the chance to move to better, less expensive, but still comfortable surrounds (and the very internet here makes much transport unnecessary). An unlucky people gets the shantytowns. Not a lot of call for light transit there, though some taxis seem to manage.
Energy demands may well force much of the suburbs that expanded onto farmlands to retreat– the pressures for this are coming from both ends, as distance and biofuel demand become deciding factors. Even if the automobile were somehow to vanish, what about trucks and point-to-point cargo transport? While I understand that light rail is for human transport, coordinated rail is more flexible for goods transport than a dedicated point-to-point PRT system. In any case, rail holds the incumbent advantage that we already know how well it works.
In short, there are reasons PRT does not seem a likely solution– and we need solutions in the short term. I’m happy to be proven wrong, but that can only come with a successful operating PRT system demonstrating popular use and affordable maintenance for anyone to see. It’s a Catch-22, the same one that aborted the automobile in the 1830s. Good luck with that.
Hey, Transportation Enthusiast, I’m a cartoonist, too. Well, sometimes. Haven’t done it awhile because of all the competition from Japan.
…
Hm, come to think of it… what’s the take on PRT in Japan? They’re all over good innovations like Kobe beef on rice.
Yamara: Regarding the “Catch-22”, what about Masdar City? That is a car-free PRT city being constructed today, the first phase of which is due to open this fall. If Heathrow doesn’t prove anything to you, then how about Masdar?
The mere fact that a private party is risking billions on PRT should say something, not to mention the well-respected design firms which have staked their reputations on PRT in Masdar. But if you demand more proof, it’s coming in the next few years as Masdar is built out. Considering that transit projects move glacially slow, Masdar will likely demonstrate the “short term” solution you require.
“we already know how well it (rail) works” – in most cities, rail draws less than a 1% transit share and requires large subsidies. Is that considered “working well”? So what is the risk in trying something new that (a) costs about the same or less, (b) has the potential to draw many more passengers onto transit, and (c) can serve as a springboard to a multimodal solution? The ridership bar is so low, that even a colossal PRT failure wouldn’t do much worse.
(Standard disclaimer: this is not anti-rail, it is pro-PRT-AND-rail).
PRT in Japan: they tried it in the late 70s (a system called CVS), and got a working prototype running at 1-second headway, but abandoned it due to regulatory concerns with the short headways. But that was 30 years ago – when CPU power and memory was measured in kilohertz and kilobytes. I think it was probably ahead of its time.
Korea has an active PRT system, being tested in the snow of Sweden. The Korean steel giant POSCO is behind that effort.
” is a station every 100 yards worthwhile?”
Who exactly is proposing stations be within 100 yards of one another? That’s complete overkill.
Optimally, in a normal urban setting (standard 1/3 acre lot residential), I’m sure the threshold is 5 minute walk, which translates into 1/2 mile between stations (meaning the maximum distance from any given point walking is 1/4 mile, which is a 5 minute walk).
nate, he is referring to Masdar’s 100 yard spacing. It’s not overkill there because it has to carry all traffic throughout the whole city. I agree that 1/2 mile spacing is probably sufficient for most cities, though Masdar demonstrates that much higher density is still possible.
“nate, he is referring to Masdar’s 100 yard spacing. It’s not overkill there because it has to carry all traffic throughout the whole city. I agree that 1/2 mile spacing is probably sufficient for most cities, though Masdar demonstrates that much higher density is still possible.”
Ah.
I’m not a fan of that kind of density of nodes.
I’m just curious as to what some of these “skeptics” think should be done. Do they want the automobile to persist in perpetuity as the dominant mode of transport? Why would someone want that?
How many road deaths do we have in the US in a given year? 42,000? About half of those are alcohol-related. What exactly is traditional mass transit going to do to change that, or are we supposed to just accept that kind of incessant carnage?
Anyone who is coming from a place like Manhattan tends to forget how spoiled they are. Excellent coverage of heavy rail, used by all economic classes, with frequent service and long hours with some owl service, supplemented by a decent bus and commuter rail services which tie in nicely to long-distance stations. Oh, and thousands upon thousands of taxi cabs running down streets everywhere 24 hours a day. Unfortunately, almost no city even approaches that kind of convenience, and unsurprisingly, no other city has the kind of low level of car ownership that New York does.
If one had to consider what it would take using mass transit, bikes, NEVs, and walking to get convenient, fast, safe, 24 hour access with reasonable travel times between any two points in a metro area, and doing that at a cost below that of doing it with cars, then it’s pretty clear that there’s no conceivable way one can get to a world that is essentially car-free with the alternatives were currently employing.
I guess some people just don’t really think about these things that deeply.
Hey anonymous (aka ATE),
I laughed out loud at the PRT propaganda envelope that was anonymously left on a chair in Old Main at Macalester College before an MPIRG chapter meeting that I was staffing in 2001. I thought to myself why such a self-proclaimed great idea couldn’t be discussed by a known individual.
FYI, I had the pleasure of meeting Ken Avidor a few years after that (’05 or ’06 I believe).
I guess he controlled my opinion on this subject (more accurately described as a distraction) retroactively, according to your analysis. Go ahead and keep trying to intimidate people with your anonymous grandstanding if you wish, but I’m done wasting time on your personal distraction mission.
propaganda
intimidation
grandstanding
distraction
Interesting choice of words.
“I had the pleasure of meeting Ken Avidor a few years after that”
I bet it was quite a religious experience for you. Four years later and you’re still spreading his word. 🙂
“I laughed out loud at the PRT propaganda envelope”
So Matthew, is MIT part of the “PRT propaganda”? How about C2HM Hill and Arup? Foster & Partners? The governments of Sweden and the UK? Environmental groups Bioregional and World Wildlife Fund? The German government in the late 1970s? NASA scientists in the early 1970s?
Listen to yourself Matthew! All of the groups I mentioned above have either endorsed PRT or have done substantial work developing it. Your little anti-PRT belief system assumes they’re all just part of an anti-transit propaganda campaign! Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
Really, Matthew, please explain to me how all those groups, which represent THOUSANDS of respected individuals across 4 decades of development, are all part of some secret disinformation plot! If you really believe it’s just propaganda, then you should be prepared to explain each of those entities’ involvement.
By the way, I notice you are from the Twin Cities, which means you are yet another data point supporting my theory that Ken Avidor has absolutely poisoned the concept of PRT in that region, maybe even that whole state. Your “I didn’t meet Ken Avidor until later” excuse doesn’t hold water – Avidor’s been on the anti-PRT warpath since 2003, and anyone in the Twin Cities would be exposed to his anti-PRT propaganda campaign well before 2005.
Today, in Minnesota, pro-dioxin is a more tenable political position than pro-PRT, and that’s mostly due to a small group of disinformation peddlers led by Ken Avidor. Thankfully, Ken Avidor and his disciples haven’t had too much success outside Minnesota.
I look forward to the day (soon!) when the Minneapolis Star Tribune examines the PRT successes around the world and finally asks the question, “why did such a good idea fall flat here?” I already know the answer.
In the meantime, I anxiously await your response to my question – why specifically would all those groups be involved in a propaganda campaign?
ATE, I believe you’re ascribing far more power and influence to zealots than actually occurs in reality. Most people are fairly level-headed and they know how to filter out the ravings of obsessive people who traffic mostly in character attacks, conspiracy theories, innuendo, and guilt-by-association.
I mean, did you know that Michelle Bachmann lives in a domicile that shelters her from the outdoor elements? So does Dean Zimmerman! This Green/Crackpot Right-Wing megaconspiracy to make us all sheltered from the elements is a stalking horse to eventually entrap us in the Matrix.
The best course of action is to live in a lean-to on the banks of the Mississippi.
#148 nate: lol. 🙂
I think what’s really going to push the zealot over the edge is that the person who is going to bring PRT to full fruition is from his own town, has some of the same friends as the zealot, yet he has no idea who this person is.
I wonder if zealous Luddites who essentially stand alone realize that when the time comes that what they opposed comes into the mainstream, people are going to look back at the history of its development, and those who obsessively fought against based on fevered notions of a nefarious conspiracy are going to end up as historical footnotes that get laughed at throughout the generations.
Personally, if I were such a zealot, I’d be praying for the emergence of an even louder and obsessive zealot to perhaps steal the limelight so that I didn’t end up as a punchline after I’m gone.