Posted on 02/19/2005 2:40:19 PM PST by ajr276
In "The Incredibles," the eponymous superhero family spends much of the movie trying to either escape or infiltrate the villain's high-tech island lair. Among the creepy sci-fi elements -- parrots with camera eyes, a destructive robot that can strategize -- is the beautifully eerie monorail that silently glides around the volcano, transporting the villain's henchmen in small round cars. The heroes occasionally hitch a ride on one of these moving pods while battling the forces of evil.
In real life, we may not have superheroes, but soon we will have those little monorail cars, zipping commuters and shoppers (and maybe an occasional henchman) from point A to point B. They're part of a system called Personal Rapid Transit, or PRT, which is poised to replace the more expensive, less environmentally friendly and frequently less convenient mass transit systems of old.
What really makes PRT different from mass transit is that it combines the convenience and luxury of a taxi with the efficiency of subway and bus travel: Rather than packing into a large carriage with a hundred smelly strangers, with PRT you get a private car. Instead of stopping at every station on the line, you zip straight to your final destination. And the visual impact -- replacing the bulky steel trains and buses with sleek bubbles that look like mid-century creations from the designer Arne Jacobsen -- appeals to any kid who dreamt of being a Jetson, or now, an Incredible...
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Be sure and ping Willie Green.
You linked me to a Salon site with a requirement to open my computer to receive ad-ware?
Cities would be better off to simply de-regulate the taxicab business and let the market provide the "convenience and luxury of a taxi" with--well, taxis.
The infrastructure costs of this people-mover thing would be exorbitant for the benefits derived.
Sorry about that. I thought I'd skipped the ad and linked to the portion with just the story itself.
Look to the PRT experiment installed at UWV - Morgantown in 1972. This will not fly and yes, I would expect Salon to fall for it.
Reminds me of that great piece by James Fallows which appeared in The Atlantic Monthly about one month after 9/11. It announced the arrival of personal aircraft as being feasible because of the parachute system that have been developed for light aircraft. There is about a two month lead time for production of The Atlantic Monthly, so Fallows didn't have a clue about the event which would mean the idea of having hundreds of thousands of light aircraft in the skies was not a good one.
Car ports
Salon ^ | November 19, 2004 | Priya Jain
Posted on 12/07/2004 3:05:21 PM PST by kevkrom
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1296476/posts
It's not the expense of taking taxis that discourages taxi use, but the basic unpleasantness of getting into a dirty vehicle driven by a foreigner who hasn't had a bath this decade and has less idea about how to get around the city than I do; being stuck in traffic with less control over the situation than if I were driving my own car; and having to find a taxi when the weather is bad. Taxis were a nice idea for the last hundred years or so but now I'm up for something better.
I live near Washington DC, where we have a handsome and efficient subway system that reaches out into the suburbs. We gripe about it a good deal but it's vastly superior to the systems of other American cities when it comes to cleanliness, efficiency, and safety. And odor, too. People like it enough that it's tough to find a parking place at the Metro parking lots and the trains are crowded. So clearly people go for mass transit for some purposes, like commuting from a perimeter location to a city for recreational or business purposes. We just won't use one for commuting around the perimeter from one suburban site to another, which is where most commuting goes on.
I see it as very viable. Cost savings will occur due to labor replacement with bus drivers. And if it is put in place in the areas of highest demand, it could spread quickly.
For example, pick ups at airports parking lots. You eliminate 3 or 4 drivers labor and have $300,000 or $400,000 a year to pay towards this system. Build it from the Airport to downtown and every major hotel in the area will want to hook on and eliminate their shuttle drivers.
It's biggest drawback. It can only go where the rail(s) takes you. Automating driving that's not tied to rails would be more beneficial. If you did that, it could spread instantly into rural areas.
What's the point in building a monorail, when we can just wait a few years and everyone will have what is essentially the same thing only it uses ordinary streets....in other words, a car that can drive itself.
I rode the Metro last summer and agree it's a pretty good system. When I travel I seek to try out the rail systems wherever they exist. I am skeptical however about the economic viability of these individual people-movers such as envisioned in the article.
I have used taxis frequently in cities where they are plentiful, and while they are sometimes grubby as you suggest, the city didn't have to build them their own monorails.
The market issue is that many urban centers obstruct the market by restricting their numbers by issuing limited licenses or medallions. Many people will continue to drive in (and into) the city because the rail system only goes to a limited range of destinations, while the taxis are too scarce and "never around when you need one."
I could see PRT's evolving in vacation meccas or resort areas of the affluent, however, like Las Vegas or maybe Hilton Head, someplace where money is no object.
I have not gone to the link, the adware mention in #3 concerns me, so I'm not fully informed, just reflecting on the presented text and the comments of others.
Two things that would pose a problem would be both the initial investment required to design and build the system and the on-going costs of maintenance.
1. In general, there is little money in the coffers for any new transportation projects, I believe the majority of the money that is there goes to the maintenance of existing roadways. If it is supposed to replace taxis, buses, etc., it will need a new rail system separate from the existing railroads (the traffic would be too heavy and the current rail system is designed more for long-haul commutes, not local traffic).
2. The on-going costs of maintaining and upgrading the system need to be taken into account at the beginning of the project, before anything is actually done.
In short, it would need a dedicated funding source, which means a tax on something, so you have to convince the general population to pay for a new system that they may/may not utilize. I think it is an interesting idea, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
DING! We have a winner.
(But that solution doesn't require any additional bureucrats, bond issues, or taxes)
The reason it is a dirty foreigner unfamiliar with indoor plumbing is that taxicabs are a business for the benefit of the insiders that own the medallions. Deregulate it, and you would have new competitors piling in, with clean cars and deodorized drivers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.