Slashdot Log In
Two Big Tests For Personal Rapid Transportation
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:19 AM
from the as-long-as-you-stay-near-a-charging-point dept.
from the as-long-as-you-stay-near-a-charging-point dept.
Al writes "A novel kind of transit system, in which cars are replaced by a network of automated electric vehicles, is about to get its first large-scale testing and deployment. Two of these Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems are being installed this year, one at Heathrow International Airport, near London, and one in the United Arab Emirates, where it will be the primary source of transportation in Masdar City, a development that will eventually accommodate 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses and is designed to emit no carbon dioxide. The article examines these two systems and includes video that includes an animation of the PRT system in action."
Related Stories
Submission: Two Big Tests For Personal Rapid Transportation by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This will revolutionize transportation... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This will revolutionize transportation... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speed. You can cover a lot of ground without expending energy over the course of your long shift in the huge terminal you're patrolling, and when you step off it you're not "tired out" from getting to where you're needed.
(assuming the cop in question actually does maintain a fitness regime commensurate with a job where being grossly unfit would be a severe hindrance - I know some cops who do, and some who don't - in the former case, the Segway is just a tool for the job, in the latter case, it is a crutch t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I've often wondered if Police depts around the country actually have minimum physical standards that all street cops have to pass. If they do, how freakin' low are these minimums?
I mean, I see a LOT of officers that could not run a block without heart failure, and with guts so large, they have a hard time fitting under a steering wheel of a car.
I t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They typically (always?) have to meet a set of minimum physical standards to get hired. However, they are not often required to maintain those standards once employed. Professional firefighters, on the other hand, typically have to meet a much stricter set of standards to get hired and maintaining their health is certainly a condition of employment. I know a cop here (captain now) who tried for about a decade to get into the fire department but, once he finally passed the physical entrance screen he was
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My main beef with them is that you are no longer talking at eye level. They are raised up above you.
The height is an advantage. Its not a 'birds eye view', but it gets them up over the crowd a bit, which is enough to make a big difference.
And of course they can cross an airport quickly without expending energy which can come in handy in an actual emergency.
The talking down thing is sort of a bonus, because its a 'position of power', while its annoying if you are just chatting, in theory it the height advant
What is really wrong with trains? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:5, Insightful)
They leave at the second you want to leave and can probably stop exactly where you want to stop.
Instead of trying to speed up and slow down an entire train every 1/2 mile you're only accelerating and stopping these once per passenger.
I didn't RTFA, but the systems I've seen in the past have little 'bypasses' at each stop. You get in and punch in a destination. If you're at your destination you get off. If you're not you keep on whizzing by. It's faster so people would be more apt to use it. (You're not going to waste 3/4 of the trip slowing down and speeding up to somewhere you're not going.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but count tonnage per passenger and I think you'll find the cars are a lot worse for efficiency, so the accelerating and stopping per passenger is a lot worse for the personal vehicles.
These are convenient only for places they go, as well. They either need to be as big and safe as a car, or they need tracks like a train.
As far as I can tell, the only thing they have going for them is being electric instead of fuel, and being so ugly nobody would try to steal it.
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:4, Interesting)
Except when everything is tied to the same grid you can use one big 'battery' at the end of the line. Every time a vehicle brakes you can dump the energy back to the grid. A huge underground flywheel would be ideal. If every car tried to accelerate at once you could dump it out of the fly wheel and vice versa (just make sure you size your power lines to handle the load).
For aerodynamic efficiency you could easily pair one or two pods together to go a long distance. If I'm going across town and there's a personal pod coming up that is going to the similar location the system could sync our vehicles up for the longest portion of the drive.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As for theft, there is no ability to steal the car. It's connected to a grid, with no means of driving it off the grid. It has no use outside the grid, making it pointless to steal.
You just summed up the single failing point of the Great Bumper Car Heist of '97 that I organized... Man, did we have a tough time explaining that one to the cops.
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, but it loses the efficiency of scale. A bus only needs 1 engine, for this you need 1 engine for every 1 or 2 people. A bus would use the same amount of energy to stop and let 10 people off, as it would to stop and let 1 off.
Given a source of cheap clean energy, I can see these being cool. Otherwise, some larger system would be more efficient.
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:4, Insightful)
A bus would use the same amount of energy to stop and let 10 people off, as it would to stop and let 1 off.
EXACTLY. Why run an enormous diesel (or electric, or CNG) motor to move around an entire bus, if the payload that needs to be transported is only a single person?
The PRT approach allows the energy expendicture of system to scale almost exactly with demand, albeit with a larger overhead at peak usage than traditional mass transit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's right on. If you do a lot of travel you see several peak times during the day, and a lot of off peak times. it's not uncommon to see a train/tram/whatever running fairly empty. That's a lot of wasted energy.
The real question of these systems won't be if they can save money per passenger, it's can they spin up and handle the load at peak times.
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how cars will eventually be replaced.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Otherwise, some larger system would be more efficient.
More energy efficient, but less time efficient. It depends on the relative value of people's time vs. energy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A bus only needs 1 engine, for this you need 1 engine for every 1 or 2 people.
Yes, but what happens when that bus has only 1 or 2 (or zero) people? You waste a lot of energy moving around a heavy, empty bus.
A bus would use the same amount of energy to stop and let 10 people off, as it would to stop and let 1 off.
And it would use the same amount of energy to stop and let zero people off, which it does many times a day. This is a waste of energy, and a waste of time for the people on the bus.
Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses. It seems that the best way to make use of the two systems is to have scheduled bus service only during peak hours to make use of the efficiency of a
Fault with trains and busses (Score:3, Interesting)
A bus would use the same amount of energy to stop and let 10 people off, as it would to stop and let 1 off.
You refuted your own argument here. This is exactly why buses and trains are inefficient. During peak hours they are great--a full bus has dozens of people being carried by a single vehicle, but half the time buses are LESS than half full. Buses are very large and consume a lot of diesel, so if you can't run them full ALL the time they approach the efficiency of a car.
The "peak load" problem can be solved by either closing or merging routes during non-peak hours (at the expense of customer service/utilit
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of trying to speed up and slow down an entire train every 1/2 mile you're only accelerating and stopping these once per passenger.
But of course you have to run the huge train or bus off-peak, too. Otherwise, people won't be able to depend on mass transit and will drive. So as a result, even the vaunted NYC mass-transit system isn't - on average - that much better than if people were just being hauled around in individual cabs.
Some mix is probably the right thing to do. Peak hours run a combination of express and local trains, just like today. But then switch over to these little personal cars on the same tracks during off-peak times.
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it scales up, it then can be compared to cars, not trains.
The benefits a system like this has over cars are:
- Vastly reduced fatalities to occupants (though perhaps pedestrians can still be struck by them)
- Vastly reduced production resources - instead of everyone having a car, you just "call a cab"
- Vastly reduced pollution - since you can centralize the power source, instead of having cars spewing everywhere
- Vastly reduced parking resources - these can just roam or idle in compact storage, instead of requiring parking spots at every house and every destination
- Vastly reduced traffic congestion - since traffic is controlled by robotic overlords
- Get as drunk as you want while you "drive" - or alternately, work, play, etc. while you are transported
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure; most people love driving. It has become part of the "American way" for some reason.
But how does "liking" something compare to killing tens of thousands of people each year [dot.gov], causing massive destruction of ecosystems, causing other vast climactic changes, draining natural resources, and destroying watersheds (with pavement)?
Is a little enjoyment really worth all that? Can't you go drive bumper cars or play a driving game or something?
Heck, lots of guys enjoy having sex with lots of varied women every day. But something prevents them from grabbing the nearest hottie and having their way with her. I think it has something to do with... social responsibility.
Parent
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:4, Insightful)
People like having control, sure. People who are as pathological about it as you are are called control freaks. It costs more to you and to everyone around you and you acknowledge it's more dangerous to life and limb, yet you still insist on manual control of 1-2 tons of steel, including dependence on a primitive manual transmission lever you have to flip with your own hand?
Wanting to drive for fun is one thing. Wanting to drive for control is nuts. Driving in any large metro area is nothing but an exercise in frustration anyway, if your goal is control. You're surrounded night and day by hundreds of other vehicles and you don't control a single one of them. You're forced to proceed at the pace of the vehicle in front of you and no faster, many times. You're forced to stop repeatedly at stop lights for other vehicles, or even for nothing at all, because the light will turn red regardless. Doesn't sound like you have much personal control over the experience at all, if you ask me.
And flying cars, if they ever exist in the numbers that automobiles exist today, will be computer controlled and it will be criminally illegal to fly on manual over a metro area. Bet on it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've got no concrete info to back this up, only my gut -- but I wonder if providing small, relatively private transportation pods could backfire (as much as I would like it to succeed).
People may feel like the pod they're currently in is "theirs". And we've seen what people do in their own cars and how they can treat them: eating, smoking, littering, f#%&ing, you name it. Then consider also what people do in/on city buses and subway systems. After a pod has been in service for the first 48 hours, will it be clean/sanitary enough that others will want to use it?
I certainly wouldn't want to find people's stale McDonald's french fries, mysterious sticky substances on the seats, etc. At least on mass transit, you're sharing the space so there's a certain social pressure to respect others to some degree, but would this evaporate in the privacy of "your own pod"?
Parent
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
One big train or bus logically can only come by every so many minutes. You don't want to wait 15 minutes. Plus it can only follow a specific route.
For example, my office is 10 minutes away by car. Yet if I were to ride the bus that goes there it would take 1.5 HOURS because first I have to wait 15 minutes for it to show up, then I have to ride downtown to a central station, wait another 15 minutes for the bus going to where I want to go, and then ride that bus. All the way these buses are starting and stopping and go maybe overall 1/2 the speed of a car.
I don't have 1.5 hours of free time to spend commuting. Judging by the ridership, nobody else that is gainfully employed does either.
Now, if we had say smart electric taxis that would show up when I need my ride and go directly there at speed, it would be basically a no-brainer. I'd be on it in 5 seconds. Even if it DID go half as fast as a normal car, so what? I can live with 20 mins if it will save me money. I might even do it if it cost the same.
Parent
Re:Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called a bicycle. Get some fenders, a good lock, and add a pannier or two for your work clothes.
Travel slowly so you don't sweat (say around 10mph or so).
If your office is 10 minutes away by car, odds are it is within two or three miles, should be easy to reach it within 20 minutes or so.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some trains don't need any drivers at all. The "Skytrain" system in Vancouver is driverless.
Re:What is really wrong with trains? (Score:4, Funny)
Comparing a network layer protocol to a physical and data link layer one? That's good for a 6-month suspension of your geek card... turn it in, right now.
Parent
"Designed to emit no carbon dioxide"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm assuming the system is electric, but it could only meet the "no CO2" if the electric power is nuclear, hydro, solar, etc... If it's traditional electric power, it's just moving the source of the CO2 and perhaps the efficiency.
Re:"Designed to emit no carbon dioxide"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does that have to be a downfall of this system? The people that build the transportation don't have any power over what the city or power utility has decided to use for electricity any more than you or I, so it's out of their control. Is it the fault of somebody that lives in an apartment that the apartment has electricity from a coal plant instead of a wind farm since solar and wind are probably not feasible on site?
This is a better option, because of efficiency, than other options, with a chance to being upgraded to renewable sources when it is feasible. Many places in the US already are moving toward more renewable sources, but do you expect even them to all scrap any investment they'd already made in carbon based electricity before renewables became viable options?
Do what works but campaign for improvement in the next upgrade.
Parent
Re:"Designed to emit no carbon dioxide"? (Score:5, Insightful)
i think the gist is that being electric, the vehicles are therefore power-source agnostic, in terms of it being easy to get the power from renewable sources. You can just change the input and the output is fixed. With gasoline powered cars, thats not the case.
Parent
Heathrow (Score:5, Funny)
Oh the delicious irony of using "Heathrow" and "rapid transit" in the same sentence.
Re:Heathrow (Score:5, Funny)
You'd be surprised how rapidly your baggage ends up 5,000 miles away from your destination.
Parent
Good idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good idea, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems as if something like this would attract vagrants, significant vandalism and just plain disgustingness. Would be pretty cool though if major cities were only filled with people like the scientists and engineers would designed it.
I don't know the particulars of this system but I can make a couple of assumptions on how this can be handled.
1. You pay for your trip via credit card.
2. A vehicle arrives for your use. If it is unsanitary, you press a button and it routes back to maintenance for cleaning.
3. Any vehicle flagged for maintenance will have its passenger log reviewed. Any passenger racks up 3 sanitary flaggings by passengers using the vehicle after him will be banned from the service for a month.
I'm less enthusiastic about putting video cameras in the cab to directly record vandalism, it could just as easily be abused as any other reasonable control people think of, but I think the flagging system should be relatively abuse-resistant. And I'd feel very pleased to see punks suffering the consequences of their actions. I for one am sick of going into a nice business and seeing the restrooms vandalized by stupid rich white kids who think they're ghetto because they listen to M&M.
Parent
Re:Good idea, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Bonus: You get to track exactly where everybody goes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Considering that it is built in the UK, I'd be surprised if every cab didn't have a surveillance camera.
where's mr. pointy? (Score:4, Funny)
So an entire community that emits no carbon dioxide. What are the inhabitants, vampires? Zombies? Undead "not otherwise specified"? This "green movement" is getting out of control when we turn to the dark powers.
I wonder in 20 years... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder in 20 years how these "networks" will compare to the Morgantown PRT [wikipedia.org].
Re:I wonder in 20 years... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
What's the Point? (Score:4, Interesting)
Individual transport within an airport - an environment designed round mass transport?
The Heathrow video claims '50% lower carbon emissions than buses or trains' - is that per passenger though? In a busy airport like Heathrow regular trains would be more efficient than individual transporters surely.
interesting concept (Score:4, Informative)
I'm still a big fan of skytran. I don't know if the political and financial support is there but the economics seem reasonable and I think it's certainly an engineering possibility, not relying on unobtanium or anything wild.
The link to the website goes into far greater detail but the nickel synopsis is this:
1. Two passenger monorail cars using a computerized rail system to rapidly route passengers to destinations, avoiding the stop and start of traditional subway and light rail. (Monorail, yes monorail! Your simspon reference is weak, shut up.)
2. Cars, rails and towers are designed to be light so the footprint on the ground is about the same as a telephone pole.
3. With all the rails in the air, real estate on the ground can be used for pretty much anything, avoiding the disruptive problems and huge expense of running traditional light rail lines.
4. Because the lines are cheaper, a grid can be laid over a sprawling metropolitan area lacking the high population densities required to make traditional mass transit viable.
5. The goal is to have stops spread about everywhere so that where you want to go should be no more than a 15 minute walk after arrival. Current mass transit can leave you with miles to go to your destination.
6. Since the cars are electric and make no more than a whooshing line when going overhead, they would not be as disruptive as a conventional light rail train or a city bus.
The goal with skytran is not to replace cars but to take commuters off the road. Anyone as a single occupant in a car going places could be in one of these and free up the roads for people whose trips cannot be accomplished via skytran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTran [wikipedia.org]
Of course, the real problem we're looking at here is that zero thought has been put into sustainable urban planning. We tend to ad hoc and half-ass everything together and end up with designs that are simply unworkable. But hey, that's the human way. Maybe the energy crunch can force a reevaluation of that.
Rumpty tumpty time (Score:5, Interesting)
We almost bought one of these systems in Cardiff, Wales a few years back. Then the local press started speculating that the pods would be a great place for couples to indulge themselves on the way home from the pub. Thoughts of grafitti-covered pods full of condoms, used syringes and vomit killed the scheme dead in its tracks.
This might be OK in an airport. In an inner city it would be a disaster.
A 40+ year old pipe dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason I say this is that if you have to build one car per person and maintain the cars and the system for the cars, that's a huge environmental impact.
But in a shared-car system you don't need one car per person: you just need as many cars as are required at peak usage. For any given hour of the day, many cars are actually just sitting parked.
With fewer cars in total, it becomes more practical for those cars to be well-maintained, energy-efficient, and so on. (Convincing everyone to buy new energy-efficient cars is impossible. Migrating a communal fleet of vehicles to a new greener technology is more practical.) And if well-managed, there is no reason tha