5 ms·

Personal Rapid Transit Startup

11 points by jaydub 18y ago

Arubis 18y ago
That's pretty nifty, but the holy grail remains solving the last-mile problem. Once you've solved the doorstep-to-station issue, existing public transit solutions are fairly competent. Does anyone know of current startups in this space? The last high-profile development was the Segway, and that clearly didn't catch on for its intended purpose. That said, it sounds like you wouldn't have to worry about line changes and transfers with PRTs. Which would be nice.
- TetOn 18y ago
  >solving the last-mile problem. I think the only way you can hope to achieve this is through zoning and long-term alteration of how cities are built. Sprawly cities like Houston et al. can't possibly hope to build out any right-of-way based system such that everyone is within a mile of a station...thus you build the center and let density rise. Combine this with a suitable number of edge-sitting mega stations that outlying folks drive (or, even better: ride a bus) a shorter distance to (relative to a full commute) and you've solved a large portion of the problem, anyway.
- martythemaniak 18y ago
  There is no last-mile problem. In cities with excellent subway systems everybody is a very short walk away from a station. In Paris, for example, no building in the metro area is more than 500m (6 minute walk) from a metro station. If PRTs like this can be deployed more cheaply and widely than subways (one of their main goals), that means you can bring that down even more - perhaps 200-250m. There are very few people that cannot be served by system being a 3 minute walk away from them.
- anamax 18y ago
  > Once you've solved the doorstep-to-station issue, existing public transit solutions are fairly competent. Which "doorstep-to-station" issue? There are two ends to most trips. And no, work isn't always close to a transit stop. And, there are trips that have three ends, the "middle end" being the one that you make on the way home. And, I wouldn't use the phrase "fairly competent" to describe a system that takes twice as long to get from point A to point B as many systems outside the "great cities" do.
lsb 18y ago
The same problems of people being able to move fast without exertion or neighborly interaction seem as true for this PRT as for cars. What's the problem that they're trying to solve? People want to talk on their cellphones and read a book as they drive? Cabbies aren't everywhere? Even if it solves these problems on the cheap, it's going to be pretty unsatisfying if you just zip around in your lonely pod. This sounds like an enormous capital expense, compared to (say) self-driving 15mph cars, and it doesn't seem like it's a big benefit holistically to a city.
electromagnetic 18y ago
All these plans are doomed to failure. These are mass transit systems designed to be more convenient to people. However, I don't think people were spending $40,000 on an SUV out of needing convenience. People will want their own vehicle, not many people will be willing to give up their sports cars or their trucks and SUV's to switch to a smart car look-a-like that you don't even own. The other problem with these systems, even if they do develop a way to beat the whole 'wanting your own car' problem. What happens when you want to go to a different country? I mean quite honestly, this system will never work in Europe as anything more than an alternative to buses. The systems need to be universally accessible, I need to be able to move from England to France to Spain and into Portugal without my vehicle losing control and driving me off the side of a bridge because Spain has a different system. There's the whole doorstep to station problem in PRT's, however thats only the first problem they've got. Allowing people to have their own vehicles (something that has to happen, there's too many vehicle companies that would need take out a PRT system to stay in business) would solve the doorstep to station, because the station is in your garage and thus negates the doorstep. However, then there's recognition between cities, I'm sure users and car manufacturers don't want vehicles doing a game of chicken when you drive onto another cities system, and the same happens between states and countries. What happens if California drove on the right and Nevada drove on the left? Someone would have to change their system. It's happened in lots of countries around the world, that one changed the side of the road they drove on because it just made it safer than trying to teach the 'stupid foreigners' they're in a different country with different rules.
- agotterer 18y ago
  I think you are overlooking the main purpose. It's not meant to eliminate cars. Its meant to be a faster, more accurate means of public transportation. For example I live in Manhattan; walking, subways, taxis and buses are the main means of transportation. Having a car is not affordable and ends up being an inconvenience. Walking obviously isnt practical all the time. Cabs are expensive. So for people who need to get around are left with buses and the subway. Both run on specific schedules (which arent always great) and often times you need to take multiple variations to get to the final destination (or remotely close). If a pod system existed here it would allow me to travel faster and more accurately. I can run on my own schedule and go direct. Lets also not forget the green factors from eliminating hundreds of buses and subways.

11 points by jaydub 18y ago

That's pretty nifty, but the holy grail remains solving the last-mile problem. Once you've solved the doorstep-to-station issue, existing public transit solutions are fairly competent. Does anyone know of current startups in this space? The last high-profile development was the Segway, and that clearly didn't catch on for its intended purpose. That said, it sounds like you wouldn't have to worry about line changes and transfers with PRTs. Which would be nice.

TetOn 18y ago
>solving the last-mile problem. I think the only way you can hope to achieve this is through zoning and long-term alteration of how cities are built. Sprawly cities like Houston et al. can't possibly hope to build out any right-of-way based system such that everyone is within a mile of a station...thus you build the center and let density rise. Combine this with a suitable number of edge-sitting mega stations that outlying folks drive (or, even better: ride a bus) a shorter distance to (relative to a full commute) and you've solved a large portion of the problem, anyway.
martythemaniak 18y ago
There is no last-mile problem. In cities with excellent subway systems everybody is a very short walk away from a station. In Paris, for example, no building in the metro area is more than 500m (6 minute walk) from a metro station. If PRTs like this can be deployed more cheaply and widely than subways (one of their main goals), that means you can bring that down even more - perhaps 200-250m. There are very few people that cannot be served by system being a 3 minute walk away from them.
anamax 18y ago
> Once you've solved the doorstep-to-station issue, existing public transit solutions are fairly competent. Which "doorstep-to-station" issue? There are two ends to most trips. And no, work isn't always close to a transit stop. And, there are trips that have three ends, the "middle end" being the one that you make on the way home. And, I wouldn't use the phrase "fairly competent" to describe a system that takes twice as long to get from point A to point B as many systems outside the "great cities" do.

lsb 18y ago

The same problems of people being able to move fast without exertion or neighborly interaction seem as true for this PRT as for cars. What's the problem that they're trying to solve? People want to talk on their cellphones and read a book as they drive? Cabbies aren't everywhere? Even if it solves these problems on the cheap, it's going to be pretty unsatisfying if you just zip around in your lonely pod. This sounds like an enormous capital expense, compared to (say) self-driving 15mph cars, and it doesn't seem like it's a big benefit holistically to a city.

electromagnetic 18y ago

All these plans are doomed to failure. These are mass transit systems designed to be more convenient to people. However, I don't think people were spending $40,000 on an SUV out of needing convenience. People will want their own vehicle, not many people will be willing to give up their sports cars or their trucks and SUV's to switch to a smart car look-a-like that you don't even own. The other problem with these systems, even if they do develop a way to beat the whole 'wanting your own car' problem. What happens when you want to go to a different country? I mean quite honestly, this system will never work in Europe as anything more than an alternative to buses. The systems need to be universally accessible, I need to be able to move from England to France to Spain and into Portugal without my vehicle losing control and driving me off the side of a bridge because Spain has a different system. There's the whole doorstep to station problem in PRT's, however thats only the first problem they've got. Allowing people to have their own vehicles (something that has to happen, there's too many vehicle companies that would need take out a PRT system to stay in business) would solve the doorstep to station, because the station is in your garage and thus negates the doorstep. However, then there's recognition between cities, I'm sure users and car manufacturers don't want vehicles doing a game of chicken when you drive onto another cities system, and the same happens between states and countries. What happens if California drove on the right and Nevada drove on the left? Someone would have to change their system. It's happened in lots of countries around the world, that one changed the side of the road they drove on because it just made it safer than trying to teach the 'stupid foreigners' they're in a different country with different rules.

agotterer 18y ago
I think you are overlooking the main purpose. It's not meant to eliminate cars. Its meant to be a faster, more accurate means of public transportation. For example I live in Manhattan; walking, subways, taxis and buses are the main means of transportation. Having a car is not affordable and ends up being an inconvenience. Walking obviously isnt practical all the time. Cabs are expensive. So for people who need to get around are left with buses and the subway. Both run on specific schedules (which arent always great) and often times you need to take multiple variations to get to the final destination (or remotely close). If a pod system existed here it would allow me to travel faster and more accurately. I can run on my own schedule and go direct. Lets also not forget the green factors from eliminating hundreds of buses and subways.