You give love (and Podcars) a bad name
Most of my blog reads probably know of my interest in PRT/Podcars, so today I was surfing around on links off a blog post about PRT and I ran into a website called PRTProject.com. Naturally, I was excited. It’s always fun to see new and interesting websites about the concept.
When I stopped being excited and started understanding, for the first time, half of the arguments against PRT is when I read the second section on the main page. The part where the website author informs us that rather than compliment existing road-based transit (the car, the bus, the taxi, etc.) PRT replaces said systems.
Oh. My. F’ing. Goodness. I am truly panicked about the fact that, according to the site counter, 8717 people other than me have read that site and been so entirely mislead about an amazing transit concept as to turn entirely away from it for life (I’m assuming that part, because if I had no understanding of PRT I’d run screaming from the idea based on the information on that website).
I am not a huge car fan, but even I can’t fathom having it completely taken away from me in favor of tracks built into the street carrying publicly-run Podcars. My skin crawls at the thought.
AND I LOVE PODCARS.
OK, background for those confused: PRT is not meant to replace ANY type of transit, rather it’s a concept (that will be proven or disproven at London’s Heathrow Airport in the coming months) that solves quite a few problems that current transit systems don’t (the problem of how to get to a lightrail stop 5 miles away, for example, or how to get across a large corporate/university campus or a large airport or a small town that can’t support any larger transit systems*). Podcars are a beautifully scalable concept, but never in a million years will they, should they, or could they replace ALL cars on the streets of a town. (Masdar City being an exception to this rule whose successfulness is still to be seen.) The beauty of having lots of transit options is just that, OPTIONS. People who enjoy driving should be able to drive. A PRT system should not take that right away from anybody.
[*I used a bunch of small-scale implementation possibilities as examples because I think that's the way PRT will first prove itself, but I think it does hold the potential to cover an entire city. I just think that any kinks will need to be worked out on smaller systems first.]
For some reason (that quite frankly does escape me) it seems that PRT/Podcars is a much more controversial topic than other transit systems (although there’s quite a bit of bickering over HSR in the US, too, I guess) and that’s why I think that a website that blindly positions PRT as something to COMPLETELY replace automobiles, including the roads they travel on (without a word of what roads emergency vehicles [that's not true, apparently] and other non-automobiles would use) is really dangerous (and naive). Anybody who really understands transit in America understands that you can’t take people’s cars away from them. You can give them more transit options so that those who don’t want to be tied to a car don’t have to be, but you just can’t remove the roads and expect people to take it. And implying that all versions of PRT (the website never stipulates that the idea presented is an extremely far-out version of PRT) involve taking away people’s cars, well, that’s just rude and extremely counter-productive to the cause of getting people to take Podcars seriously.
Badly done, PRTProject.com, BADLY DONE.
That is all.
-j
(1 votes, average: 3.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
August 12th, 2009 at 6:09
Thanks for the post. I could not agree more. There are a lot of strange ideas out there. Luckily there are a lot of good ideas too!
Reply
August 13th, 2009 at 9:30
test
Reply
August 13th, 2009 at 9:39
I’m not sure I understand your response to my prtproject proposal. The term PRT as you know stands for personal rapid transit. In what way does my concept violate that definition? It’s not like the other concepts out in the world have dominated the industry. I would say that, not only is the term up for grabs, but that we NEED more untraditional thinking in the world of transportation.
> PRT is not meant to replace ANY type of transit
Says who? I repeat…the term is up for grabs. And if the technology is as good as I believe it is, why wouldn’t you want to extend it throughout the city?
> The beauty of having lots of transit options is just that, OPTIONS.
There’s nothing beautiful about transfers. The various existing transit systems in the world really don’t stand on their own. They usually require you to make transfers. And transfers are exactly what kills most public transportation concepts. People want door to door. That’s why the automobile dominates. So what you call beauty, I call inefficient.
> I used a bunch of small-scale implementation possibly as examples because I think that’s the way PRT will first prove itself, but I think it does hold the potential to cover an entire city. I just think that any kinks will need to be worked out on smaller systems first.
Well good….maybe we’re on the same page after all. I agree that the system first needs to prove itself on a smaller scale. I say as much on the website. So there’s a bit of a disconnect for you to dislike my proposal so much, but then turn around and say that PRT does indeed have the potential to -cover an entire city-.
> PRT/Podcars is a much more controversial topic than other transit systems
We have almost zero PRT systems in production. And the concept, even though it’s been around for decades, has yet to prove itself. That’s why there’s controversy. Not really that surprising. It just means we haven’t come upon the right design yet.
> without a word of what roads emergency vehicles and other non-automobiles would use
Actually this issue is addressed on the Design page. You just missed it.
> Anybody who really understands transit in America understands that you cant take peoples cars away from them.
I’m sure they made that same argument about taking away people’s horse and buggy. Let me ask you this….do you believe that transportation will be 100% automated in the future? In 50 years? 100 years? Or do you believe that people will ALWAYS be holding a steering wheel and running into ditches?
gary
Reply
jimmy Reply:
August 15th, 2009 at 3:06
Hey Gary. Thanks for the comment. Sorry I didn’t respond until now, I didn’t see it.
“In what way does my concept violate that definition?”
It doesn’t. I think it takes it to an extreme that if pitched to a City Council would send them screaming all the way back into the arms of the Highway Lobby.
“I repeat…the term is up for grabs.”
Then it’s open for interpretation and opinion. My opinion is that PRT is not the prefect transit system but that it’s much better than anything else at solving the “last-mile” (last 20 miles?) issue. Specifically until PRT has been proven in several dozen different locations I think it’s important from a political standpoint to try not to make enemies in the transit community by going after other transit options (the Light Rail Lobby seems to hate PRT for good reason, so I think at first it will be good to position PRT as something to complement light rail rather than compete against it, even if PRT is a better option.) I just think PRT has a better chance if it’s pushed as something to work WITH existing systems rather than telling cities that if they opt to use PRT their entire existing system will be worthless.
“There’s nothing beautiful about transfers.”
I agree, but that’s not what I said. I said that the beauty of having transit options. I think options are good.
“So there’s a bit of a disconnect for you to dislike my proposal so much, but then turn around and say that PRT does indeed have the potential to -cover an entire city-.”
No disconnect at all. We simply have different ideas about how to go about covering an entire city.
“Actually this issue is addressed on the Design page. You just missed it.”
My bad. I’ll update the post in accordance.
“I’m sure they made that same argument about taking away people’s horse and buggy.”
But the automobile wasn’t completely removing the roads the horse and buggy drove on. The horse and buggy WAS STILL AN OPTION. As I read your idea it wouldn’t leave the possibility for people to still own and drive a car within the city, am I wrong?
“do you believe that transportation will be 100% automated in the future?”
I haven’t thought about it, but that’s not the point of my post. My point is to PRT is so far simply an idea and many people are leery of it simply because it’s new and I think that your website, in not mentioning that there are ways of trying out PRT within removing people’s cars from them, doesn’t do anything to make City Planners and transit authorities and (most importantly) concerned citizens doing a Google search any reason not to hate PRT.
Honestly I think it’s an interesting idea you’ve got, but from the perspective of trying to get PRT (any PRT) installed in some city SOMEWHERE (other than Heathrow Airport and Masdar City) I think that not pointing out that your idea is a more involved version of the general concept is hurtful to the cause.
In my post I said “the website never stipulates that the idea presented is an extremely far-out version of PRT”. Is that wrong?
Again, thanks for your comment.
-j
Reply
August 18th, 2009 at 1:07
Jimmy,
I understand your point about potentially scaring away a bureaucrat working for some city council somewhere, but do you really see PRT as a simple off-the-shelf transportation package, no different than purchasing a fleet of buses? I don’t don’t see it that way. PRT is more of a transportation revolution than evolution. It deserves extensive testing by colleges and large corporations. The DARPA model is very approriate to PRT…one where all parties are invited to compete. Honestly, anyone thinking that PRT is the same as purchasing a bus line SHOULD run the other direction. It’s just not. And I say that as a HUGE believer in PRT. In fact, because I believe it will ultimately replace other modes of urban transportation, I’m really more of a believe than most.
> My opinion is that PRT is not the prefect transit system but that it’s much better than anything else at solving the “last-mile”
Much better? Let’s face it…aside from the automobile, it’s the ONLY system that can ever solve the last mile problem.
> I think it’s important from a political standpoint to try not to make enemies in the transit community by going after other transit options
My website intentionally ignores the obvious political hurdles, focusing instead on the engineering challenge. The problem with lobbies in this country is HUGE to be sure, going way beyond just that of the transportation industry. And as long as we live in a (representative) democracy, the people are at the mercy of their own ignorance. That’s clearly a harder problem to solve. I suspect PRT will be advanced in other countries before the US. So when I say that PRT will replace lightrail, I firmly stand by that statement and really don’t care who it offends. True science is apolitical.
> No disconnect at all. We simply have different ideas about how to go about covering an entire city.
So what’s your plan for covering an entire city?
> But the automobile wasn’t completely removing the roads the horse and buggy drove on.
But that’s exactly what it did. They don’t allow horses on most city streets.
> As I read your idea it wouldn’t leave the possibility for people to still own and drive a car within the city, am I wrong?
You are correct.
> My point is to PRT is so far simply an idea and many people are leery of it simply because it’s new and I think that your website, in not mentioning that there are ways of trying out PRT within removing people’s cars from them, doesn’t do anything to make City Planners and transit authorities and (most importantly) concerned citizens doing a Google search any reason not to hate PRT.
So do you think I should add a disclaimer to the homepage stating that most PRT concepts do not attempt to eliminate the automobile? I might consider that. I actually have no problem with PRT evolving into my concept. That makes complete sense. But I’m not about be be silenced in an engineering discussion just because I might scare off those unwilling to do their research.
> Honestly I think it’s an interesting idea you’ve got, but from the perspective of trying to get PRT (any PRT) installed in some city SOMEWHERE (other than Heathrow Airport and Masdar City) I think that not pointing out that your idea is a more involved version of the general concept is hurtful to the cause.
Possibly, but only to especially ignorant people IMO. But I concede…there are a LOT of those.
In my post I said “the website never stipulates that the idea presented is an extremely far-out version of PRT”. Is that wrong?
No, you’re not. But I think PRT is being undersold to pretend that it’s no better than a bus or subway. If a system has the potential to replace other system, that’s an advantage, not a liability.
gary
Reply