4 ms·

The problem with a system like this is that it requires us to throw out the existing system and replace it. This is unlikely to happen. I would assume that a m

by pat2man 15y ago

The problem with a system like this is that it requires us to throw out the existing system and replace it. This is unlikely to happen. I would assume that a more realistic system would to drastically expand our existing light rail, subway etc systems and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs. Automated cars have the advantage of using our existing road system without the existing issues of storage and accidents. Combining them with an efficient mass transit "core" we could achieve all the above goals with minimal changes to our existing infrastructure.

Shivetya 15y ago
http://www.swedetrack.com/ http://www.swedetrack.com/ is an older example of a similar idea, but I always think of JPODS http://www.intelligenttransportation.com/ http://www.intelligenttransportation.com/ when these ideas are suggested. So this new idea is nothing new, just has a fancier site behind it. There are many examples available at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/itrans2.htm http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/itrans2.htm
beefman 15y ago
I guess you didn't read the article: ""We live in a world designed around cars. Because world population has grown five-fold during the age of cars, we will be stuck with their legacy in roads and low-density metro configurations for at least the next century. This realization is a difficult one. I set out to start a company that could radically transform transportation. But neither the physics nor economics work out, and in fact will not work out until population density is much higher. It is the ubiquity of roads, more than the greatness of cars that is difficult to defeat. And so, the future of transportation is, perhaps disappointingly, simply better cars. Our abstract criterion for the perfect transportation system is one that is fast, ubiquitous, has on-demand departure, and is quiet, private, and safe. The solution to all of these is a self-driving car. It is clear that a maglev based personal rapid transit elevated track system should not be pursued as a business.""
- brc 15y ago
  Cars didn't invent the road, certainly not the city-based road, anyway. Most of the worlds largest cities were designed and laid out long before a car was ever even dreamed of. Roads, laneways and streets are a feature of every single ancient civilization. Mass transit is good at being mass transit, but personalised transportation (whether foot, bicycle, animal or vehicle) is always going to be with us. Of course the future is cars for the majority of people, because the majority want personalised transport where mass transit is incapable of bridging the gap.
pmr_ 15y ago
You make a good point here. Future transport system will have to leverage existing infrastructure to be successful. Multi-modal transport, like you are proposing, has are not easily solved. The time required to switch from one system of transportation to another requires hubs and introduces bottle necks and very advanced planning, perhaps even magical foresight, in regards to developing areas. A unified, personal transport system can scale more easily and has the benefits of privacy. That's why cars are relatively successful and haven't been replaced yet. I'm unconvinced that collective transportation is the real solution to the problem, but it is the best intermediate solution we have right now. Downsizing cars, removing manual control, unifying speed, and adding distributed routing capabilities seems much more promising to me.
seanp2k2 15y ago
>and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs Why not bikes and walking? Consequently, this solution also fixes the following which automated taxis can't: -pollution(bikes have much less total in mfg than cars) -maintenance(many bike shops exist and fixing bikes is comparatively easy) -parking(take it with you on the train, store in house/apartment) -cost(nice reliable used bike is under $1000) -familiarity/public acceptance(people are used to bikes) -security (take your bike with you and bikes have no software to break/get hacked) -human fitness (heart disease really sucks) -infrastructure (no batteries, gas, chargers, parking really required)
- protomyth 15y ago
  Bikes are not a useful solution to much of the populace due to medical conditions or climate. Looking out my window currently, a bike is pretty much impossible to use (ice, gusting winds). Never mind the additional facilities needed at the employer end (e.g. Showers).
  - pak 15y ago
    Weather is usually less problematic than you'd think for short rides in most temperate climate cities. It's only raining or snowing hard a small fraction of the time. Even with snow, once the roads are plowed you can bike with caution. Medical issues--I really think more people could bike if they had the courage; there are the elderly and the disabled, but your average 30 year old would do fine on a bike, even if overweight. Never mind the health benefits. I think what holds most people back are the safety issues with cars, particularly in the suburban sprawl where bike lanes are sparse. ~20 min bike commutes shouldn't get you too sweaty unless it's above 85 outside and humid. If it does, lower the pace and catch more of the breeze! For those that need to wear business attire, you'd have to stash your wardrobe at work. But I wouldn't think a shower is a requirement for most, just a bathroom to switch clothes.
    - protomyth 15y ago
      Cars are successful because they work in all climes, are enclosed, and don't make people sweaty. Bikes will not work in a lot of places with snow because plowing doesn't really remove ice patches and winds can be brutal (40 - 60 mph gusts). The future replacement for cars will probably use the same infrastructure and be powered and enclosed. As to the no need for showers, it seems a lot more people who think they don't need to shower actually do. I had a cube two rows down from a biker that believed that, but it wasn't so.
nkoren 15y ago
> The problem with a system like this is that it requires us to throw out the existing system and replace it. Right, because all horses were put down when trains were invented. And all rails were pulled up when cars were invented. And all roads were removed when, um, helicopters were invented, or something. Clearly any any new technology which isn't interoperable with the old requires the total abandonment of its predecessor. To ensure this, PRT stations will need to have some kind of access control mechanism which ensures that anybody who uses roads or cars is excluded from the system, and vice versa... Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is an argument that I encounter far too frequently, and it's completely fallacious. Nowhere does it say that building new infrastructure requires the abandonment of the old. Your second fallacy is the assumption that roads are necessarily "existing" or are in any way cheap. First, in the next 40 years, the world's urban population will increase by 2-3 billion people. For the most part, the transport infrastructure they will use does not exist yet. Decisions on what that transport infrastructure should be can be based on current best practice rather than what is "existing". Second, even in existing cities, roads wear out relatively quickly and are potentially more expensive to maintain / replace than PRT infrastructure. The balance of which is more cost-effective to (re-)implement is something that has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but is not nearly as straightforward as you suggest. Third, roads are "cheap" only if you ignore the cost of the "rolling stock" (ie the cars people have to buy to use them), and also assume that the underlying land has no value. Note that this is a tremendous amount of land: between 45% - 55% of the surface area in most cities. PRT costs are generally given as inclusive of the rolling stock, and PRT infrastructure uses about 95% less land area per unit of capacity. In medium- to high-density areas, a full-cost accounting of this typically comes out wildly favourable to PRT. Its two main drawbacks are that it does not handle crush loading caused by large demand fluxes (just like cars, but unlike trains), and that it is not cost-effective in low-density areas (just like trains, but unlike cars). Its natural niche is as an extension to light rail and subway systems (which can handle crush loads during peaks), serving medium-density areas which the mass transport systems could not economically serve on their own.

by pat2man 15y ago

Shivetya 15y ago

http://www.swedetrack.com/ http://www.swedetrack.com/ is an older example of a similar idea, but I always think of JPODS http://www.intelligenttransportation.com/ http://www.intelligenttransportation.com/ when these ideas are suggested. So this new idea is nothing new, just has a fancier site behind it. There are many examples available at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/itrans2.htm http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/itrans2.htm

beefman 15y ago

I guess you didn't read the article: ""We live in a world designed around cars. Because world population has grown five-fold during the age of cars, we will be stuck with their legacy in roads and low-density metro configurations for at least the next century. This realization is a difficult one. I set out to start a company that could radically transform transportation. But neither the physics nor economics work out, and in fact will not work out until population density is much higher. It is the ubiquity of roads, more than the greatness of cars that is difficult to defeat. And so, the future of transportation is, perhaps disappointingly, simply better cars. Our abstract criterion for the perfect transportation system is one that is fast, ubiquitous, has on-demand departure, and is quiet, private, and safe. The solution to all of these is a self-driving car. It is clear that a maglev based personal rapid transit elevated track system should not be pursued as a business.""

brc 15y ago
Cars didn't invent the road, certainly not the city-based road, anyway. Most of the worlds largest cities were designed and laid out long before a car was ever even dreamed of. Roads, laneways and streets are a feature of every single ancient civilization. Mass transit is good at being mass transit, but personalised transportation (whether foot, bicycle, animal or vehicle) is always going to be with us. Of course the future is cars for the majority of people, because the majority want personalised transport where mass transit is incapable of bridging the gap.

pmr_ 15y ago

You make a good point here. Future transport system will have to leverage existing infrastructure to be successful. Multi-modal transport, like you are proposing, has are not easily solved. The time required to switch from one system of transportation to another requires hubs and introduces bottle necks and very advanced planning, perhaps even magical foresight, in regards to developing areas. A unified, personal transport system can scale more easily and has the benefits of privacy. That's why cars are relatively successful and haven't been replaced yet. I'm unconvinced that collective transportation is the real solution to the problem, but it is the best intermediate solution we have right now. Downsizing cars, removing manual control, unifying speed, and adding distributed routing capabilities seems much more promising to me.

seanp2k2 15y ago

>and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs Why not bikes and walking? Consequently, this solution also fixes the following which automated taxis can't: -pollution(bikes have much less total in mfg than cars) -maintenance(many bike shops exist and fixing bikes is comparatively easy) -parking(take it with you on the train, store in house/apartment) -cost(nice reliable used bike is under $1000) -familiarity/public acceptance(people are used to bikes) -security (take your bike with you and bikes have no software to break/get hacked) -human fitness (heart disease really sucks) -infrastructure (no batteries, gas, chargers, parking really required)

protomyth 15y ago
Bikes are not a useful solution to much of the populace due to medical conditions or climate. Looking out my window currently, a bike is pretty much impossible to use (ice, gusting winds). Never mind the additional facilities needed at the employer end (e.g. Showers).
- pak 15y ago
  Weather is usually less problematic than you'd think for short rides in most temperate climate cities. It's only raining or snowing hard a small fraction of the time. Even with snow, once the roads are plowed you can bike with caution. Medical issues--I really think more people could bike if they had the courage; there are the elderly and the disabled, but your average 30 year old would do fine on a bike, even if overweight. Never mind the health benefits. I think what holds most people back are the safety issues with cars, particularly in the suburban sprawl where bike lanes are sparse. ~20 min bike commutes shouldn't get you too sweaty unless it's above 85 outside and humid. If it does, lower the pace and catch more of the breeze! For those that need to wear business attire, you'd have to stash your wardrobe at work. But I wouldn't think a shower is a requirement for most, just a bathroom to switch clothes.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    Cars are successful because they work in all climes, are enclosed, and don't make people sweaty. Bikes will not work in a lot of places with snow because plowing doesn't really remove ice patches and winds can be brutal (40 - 60 mph gusts). The future replacement for cars will probably use the same infrastructure and be powered and enclosed. As to the no need for showers, it seems a lot more people who think they don't need to shower actually do. I had a cube two rows down from a biker that believed that, but it wasn't so.

nkoren 15y ago

> The problem with a system like this is that it requires us to throw out the existing system and replace it. Right, because all horses were put down when trains were invented. And all rails were pulled up when cars were invented. And all roads were removed when, um, helicopters were invented, or something. Clearly any any new technology which isn't interoperable with the old requires the total abandonment of its predecessor. To ensure this, PRT stations will need to have some kind of access control mechanism which ensures that anybody who uses roads or cars is excluded from the system, and vice versa... Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is an argument that I encounter far too frequently, and it's completely fallacious. Nowhere does it say that building new infrastructure requires the abandonment of the old. Your second fallacy is the assumption that roads are necessarily "existing" or are in any way cheap. First, in the next 40 years, the world's urban population will increase by 2-3 billion people. For the most part, the transport infrastructure they will use does not exist yet. Decisions on what that transport infrastructure should be can be based on current best practice rather than what is "existing". Second, even in existing cities, roads wear out relatively quickly and are potentially more expensive to maintain / replace than PRT infrastructure. The balance of which is more cost-effective to (re-)implement is something that has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but is not nearly as straightforward as you suggest. Third, roads are "cheap" only if you ignore the cost of the "rolling stock" (ie the cars people have to buy to use them), and also assume that the underlying land has no value. Note that this is a tremendous amount of land: between 45% - 55% of the surface area in most cities. PRT costs are generally given as inclusive of the rolling stock, and PRT infrastructure uses about 95% less land area per unit of capacity. In medium- to high-density areas, a full-cost accounting of this typically comes out wildly favourable to PRT. Its two main drawbacks are that it does not handle crush loading caused by large demand fluxes (just like cars, but unlike trains), and that it is not cost-effective in low-density areas (just like trains, but unlike cars). Its natural niche is as an extension to light rail and subway systems (which can handle crush loads during peaks), serving medium-density areas which the mass transport systems could not economically serve on their own.