Federal Funding Nixed for Winona Personal Rapid Transit Project

The Winona Daily News reports another big setback for the PRTistas:

Winona's request for nearly $25 million in federal funding to test a futuristic transit technology has been denied, city leaders confirmed Monday.

The city submitted the funding application in January to build a test lab for Personal Rapid Transit, which uses small, pod-like vehicles on guideways to shuttle passengers to their destinations. The money would have created the Winona Personal Rapid Transit Lab and Partnership Center, featuring a 0.9-mile elevated guideway. The grant would have also paid to build a testing laboratory on the main campus of Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical in Winona and fund it for four years.

Just one more big failure in a long list of flops and fiascos for the pod people - let's review the most recent:

Minnesota legislators tell pod people not to expect funding from the state at dismal MnDOT "workshop".

Taxi 2000 lobbyist and Bachmann pal Ed Cain also lobbied for the phony U.S. Navy Veterans Association charity.

ULTra PRT Heathrow Debut Postponed a Fourth Time.

No $25 million earmark for PRT pork project in Winona, Minnesota.

The Swedish/Korean PRT prototype malfunctioned recently in front of the media.

The Masdar PRT (actually computer-guided golf carts that follow magnets imbedded in the roadway) has been scaled way back, This setback got a mention in the NY Times and confirmed in this Bloomberg article.

The so-called Morgantown PRT (it's a mundane people-mover) was the subject of a student newspaper editorial after a malfunction created a "fireball" and filled a vehicle with smoke. The cost of fixing the Morgantown boondoggle is $93 million.

Excerpts From Old Star Tribune Articles About Personal Rapid Transit

You can look them up with a search engine, but sorry, no direct links.

Professor still touts personal transit idea - His big dream is to get a model working for all the doubters to see

Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities - Wednesday, March 22, 2000

Author: Doug Grow; Staff Writer

In our culture, when ideas that once were bold get old, people begin to view them negatively. Anderson, once a winner of federal grants and an expert in demand all over the world, frequently hears people say, "If your idea is so good, why hasn't it been developed yet?"

State Senate Transportation Committee Chairwoman Carol Flynn, DFL-Minneapolis, recently stung him with such a remark when he was at the state Capitol seeking support for PRT.

"She wondered why the state should support this when nothing's happened after so many years," Anderson said. "I tried to explain to her that there are many ways to do this thing wrong, but there are only few ways to do it right. It does take a long time."

Said Flynn: "Ed's a great person. The University of Minnesota has a patent on his work. He's persevered, and that should never be ignored.

"But my observation is that right now it's a crazy combination of right-wing Republicans and the guys who were hanging from trees on the Hwy. 55 project who are behind him. Both those groups want to kill [light rail]. If they can kill LRT with PRT they'd be happy. My point is, I'd rather invest in something that's possible than in something that's never been applied anywhere."

Indeed, Anderson's strongest political support now comes from conservative House members who oppose light rail. State Rep. Ray Vandeveer, R-Forest Lake, wanted to put significant funding for PRT in the transportation bill. He was convinced to back off until next session - and has put forward a modest $500,000 proposal for PRT in this session.

"I don't think our transportation should be based on 150-year-old technology," said Vandeveer, speaking of LRT. "But my reason for pursuing [PRT] is I think we should get one working. That's the biggest setback to his idea now. There's not a working model. Let's get a look."

That's Anderson's dream. Get a model working for all the doubters to see. He hopes that a 2.5-mile system can be built for about $25 million to connect the hospitals at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester. City and hospital officials have expressed some support.

The University of Minnesota still owns the PRT technology, known as Taxi 2000, and would collect royalties if Anderson's corporation and PRT took off. It is agonizingly close to taking off, Anderson says. All the technology is available. There are manufacturers in Minnesota who could build the guideways and the cars. But his corporation needs investors, and PRT needs political support - and Anderson isn't as hot as he used to be.

Two years later, another Strib article:

Will rapid transit get personal ? - An elevated system offering privacy still awaits first test

Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN) - Thursday, February 21, 2002

Author: Laurie Blake; Staff Writer

RSEC: Former University of Minnesota professor Ed Anderson has designed a futuristic automated transportation system, and he has a clear vision of how well it would work.

But selling Minnesota and the world on his personal rapid transit system, or PRT as it's nicknamed, has taken 30 years and counting.

At 74, after a 50-year career in the design of complex engineering systems, Anderson is still looking for the money and sponsorship necessary to build a PRT test track. Without that backing he won't be able to demonstrate what some think could be a transportation breakthrough on the order of the steam locomotive, the automobile or the airplane.

What he proposes is an electric-powered, automated system with small private cabs riding on an elevated track. The cabs would be roughly the size of a gondola car and would carry one, two or three people in quiet and privacy. The cars would travel at 20 to 40 miles per hour. Riders would get on at a station and take a non-stop ride to the station at their destination.

The elevated track might provide quick movement on a college campus, at a state fair, at a national park, in a commercial area or through a downtown, according to Anderson.

Raising the tracks above ground means that PRT cabs would not be held up by traffic, Anderson said. It also means that PRT would be an alternative that could reduce traffic congestion and environmental disruption, he said.

Because it's an untested vision, it's hard to imagine how it would work or that it could work at all.

That, says Anderson, has been one of the chief stumbling blocks to bringing his idea to life. People who like the idea want to see it before they invest in it. And manufacturers want to be sure they have a market for the system before they build it. And so it has gone since the late 1960s when he began developing PRT.

But Anderson perseveres. He and his firm, known as Taxi 2000, now have a place to build a test track on private land in Blaine. Accomplished engineers have signed on to support PRT's development. Two manufacturing firms in Minnesota have expressed an interest in building the tracks. And Anderson has hired Padilla Speer Beardsley, a lobbying and public relations firm, to build support for a demonstration.

Anderson said he needs about $10 million to get a test track up and running.

Several legislators are discussing how to get the state involved in Anderson's idea.

``I think it's something we should look at,'' said Sen. Mark Ourada, R-Buffalo. ``You can continue to go along with the old ways and say let's build light-rail transit because everyone else has or you can hop on the next generation of transit . We could be the leader here.''

The drawback to transit for most people is that they have to give up the privacy and convenience of their car, Ourada said. ``In this system you aren't hopping on a big rail car or a big bus. You've got some privacy.''

In the House, Rep. Bruce Anderson, R-Buffalo Township*, and Rep. Mark Olson, R-Big Lake, are the keepers of the PRT flame. Like Ourada, they like the idea that PRT promises to pay its own operating costs.

True - here's a 2001 press release from the House GOP Caucus:

(ST. PAUL) Representative Bruce Anderson (R-Buffalo Township), Representative Mark Olson (R-Big Lake) and Senator Mark Ourada (R-Buffalo) will host a town hall meeting on Tuesday, March 20 to discuss transportation issues for Wright and Sherburne counties. The meeting will be held in the Big Lake High School Auditorium at 7:00 p.m. Informal questions will begin at 6:30 p.m.

Among those attending the meeting will be Dr. Lynn Woodward and Dr. J. Edward Anderson, a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Minnesota from 1963 to 1986. Dr. Anderson will address the transportation option known as Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).

"We want to keep area residents informed as to the technological developments of transportation systems," said Rep. Olson. "The public should be made aware so that all options are considered. I hope many citizens will turn out for this important informational meeting."

Here's the money quote from that old Laurie Blake article:

Other cities and countries are studying prospects for PRT, which was developed by Anderson at the University of Minnesota. It would be a state embarrassment if it were built elsewhere while ``we put our heads in the sand,'' Olson

Yeah... an embarrassment.

Hilarious Opinion Piece By Personal Rapid Transit Promoter Hugh Miller

Comment on a recent Winona Daily News article about PRT:

Not saying this is or isn't a good use of federal stimulus money. But note that the private sector businessman pitching this is the guy that's been running those full page, star spangled ads about how the country is bankrupt and headed to hell in a handbasket.

The comment is referring to this long-winded opinion piece:

Rekindling the American Dream (11/29/2009)

by Hugh Miller
President and CEO, RTP Co.

Our country is in very serious financial trouble, mortal financial danger, and unless and until we turn it around, quickly, the American Dream will die. But upon reflection it's even worse than that, for while the death of the American Dream would be tragic enough, the end of America being a safe, stable and good place to live would be cataclysmic.

It''s that serious, and as an impassioned American citizen, very worried about his country, there is an obligation to speak out, as forcefully as possible. Here's how I see it.

The national debt we are accumulating is both debilitating and unsustainable, and by most standards we are already bankrupt. What this means, in practical terms, is shortly we will not be able to control our own destiny --others will control it for us. It also means our children, and their children, will not have the same opportunities we had, and in fact will be lucky to find a real job. Further, it means our standard of living declines, rapidly, bringing about extreme and likely violent social unrest. Let me try and explain.

The numbers are staggering and confusing, so I will try and state it in terms we can better understand.

Imagine you, Mr. or Mrs. Public, have take-home pay of $27,000 per year. During the year, however, you spend $47,000, $20,000 more than you take home. How can this happen? You charge things you cannot afford and your creditors look the other way. Anyway, you now have a debt of $20,000 you‚will have to pay back over time. You have a real problem, solvable, but unless you get at it, soon, you'll end up in serious trouble.

Now let‚s imagine you suddenly realize you have a second debt of $120,000. That‚ on top of the $20,000, so the total you now owe is $140,000. That''s a very big number, more than five times your take-home pay. With a really dedicated approach, and cooperative creditors, your debt is still manageable, but only with extreme discipline and understanding bankers.

Believe it or not it gets worse. Now let‚s imagine you‚ have just discovered you have a third debt and will owe another $480,000 in just a few years. That's on top of the $20,000 and the $120,000 for a total of $620,000. That''s more than 22 times your take-home pay, so even if you paid all your take-home pay for 22 straight years you‚'d still be in debt.

You are beyond out of control; you''re a fiscal catastrophe.

Fortunately most of us don't live this way, as we live within our means. Unfortunately, however, our favorite uncle does not. No, our Uncle Sam has spent too much in the past, is spending too much now, and will spend too much in the future.

Mr. or Mrs. Public in this example is actually the U.S. government, not with take-home pay and spending in the thousands, which we can all understand, but with take-home pay and spending in the trillions, which most of us cannot understand.

Instead of taking home $27,000, the U.S. government takes home $2.7 trillion dollars. Instead of accumulating debt of $20,000 over the next year, the U.S. government will accumulate debt of $2 trillion dollars over the same period. Instead of having a second actual debt of $120,000, the U.S. government today has an actual debt of $12 trillion dollars. And instead of discovering you have a third debt of $480,000, the U.S. government has unfunded liabilities, due shortly, of $48 trillion dollars and growing. This would include future payments for Social Security, Medicare, pensions, and other obligations.

How can any person live like Mr. or Mrs. Public? The answer is they can't. How can any government live the same way? The answer is they can‚'t either. Most Mr. or Mrs. Publics know better and would never put themselves in such a terrible position. Sadly, and certainly shortsightedly, and arguably stupidly, the U.S. government has put our country, and all Americans, in extreme financial peril. Worse, they don't seem to care.

If we are to solve our problems, we must first understand them, and so we need to step back and realize just how much we have already borrowed from our future and future generations.

We are a nation of about 300 million people, and we now have a total debt and unfunded liabilities of about $62 trillion. That''s $200,000 a piece! That's truly a startling figure, but that's reality, and that's the burden we've already placed on ourselves. Irresponsible doesn't begin to describe this travesty.

What should we do? Here is what I would do.

1) First we must immediately come to grips with and try to comprehend the dire financial position we're in, today. And we must explain that ugly truth to our people, also today.

2) Second, we must stop things from getting any worse. We simply must start living within our means, within our take-home pay, whether it's $27,000 or $2.7 trillion dollars. In that regard I‚'d be in favor of an amendment requiring our government balance its budget, every year, except in times of war. Until that happens, I'd balance the budget anyway.

3) We don't take in too little, we spend too much -- much too much. Since 1999 to the present the U.S. government has taken in, on average, 4% more per year. Unfortunately, during that same timeframe, they have spent, on average, 9.2% more each year.

Simply put we must cut spending, drastically, tough and unpopular as that may be. The alternative is worse, much worse. Taxing businesses or other job creators is not the answer and will make the deficit worse while increasing unemployment.

Sacrifice will be required by all of us, and it must be done fairly, and that‚''s as it should be. But whatever policies emerge must not be done at the expense of growth, for that would be counterproductive. After World War II we also had a huge debt, but strong economic growth made it much easier to handle that debt. And the reverse is true, the lower the growth the harder it is to pay back debt.

4) Any new spending programs should be shelved until we have a real plan for fiscal solvency. It’s like redecorating your living room while a fire is blazing in your basement. Put the fire out first, completely, before you even begin to think about redecorating.

Our first order of business, by far, is to put out the fire in our basement. Unless and until we fully extinguish that fire we won't have a house to live in anyway.

5) Both the second debts, $120,000 for Mr. and Mrs. Public and $12 trillion dollars for the U.S., and the third debts, $480,000 for Mr. and Mrs. Public and $48 trillion dollars for the U.S., must be dealt with, now. Aggressive repayment and other appropriate procedures, in a bipartisan way, must be implemented immediately. We either solve these problems, together, or we die, financially at least, together. We have no choice, it must be done.

6) Lastly, but certainly not least, we must start rekindling the American spirit, which once was so great, and inspired our ancestors to come here in the first place.

That same spirit turned this country into a great world power, largely by way of American manufacturing, American education, and American entrepreneurialism.

Today that would seem far less likely, as that American spirit is missing. We live in a highly competitive global society, and, sadly, America not only has a fiscal nightmare it has also lost its competitive edge in manufacturing, in K-12 education, particularly math and science, and in entrepreneurialism.

While our first order of business is digging ourselves out of our self-inflicted financial hole, simultaneously we must also start solving our manufacturing, educational, and entrepreneurial problems. By doing that we make ourselves globally competitive and give ourselves a chance to win.

By not doing so we lose.

Those six things are keys to solving our problems and laying the foundation for a successful future. It will be difficult and painful, but it can be done and it must be done.

I often think of my grandfather, who like many others came here with little more than the shirt on his back. But those brave souls also brought with them a dream, a dream of making a better life for themselves in their new country, America --the American Dream. And they did. I've little doubt my grandfather never heard of, let alone understood, the term entrepreneur. But nevertheless he was one, and mainly by hard work and sheer determination established a business, made life better for his family and his community, and created opportunities for others along the way. He lived the American Dream.

Would he be able to do so today? He certainly was strong and determined and his wife even more so, but I‚'m not so sure, in fact I doubt it --there simply are too many roadblocks. Would he even want to come here today? I'm not so sure of that either, and that, to me at least, is really sad.'

Minus that entrepreneurial spirit our economy won't grow, jobs won’t be created, and we'll start to experience an increasingly rapid decline in our standard of living. If we are to recover, it's entrepreneurs who will lead that recovery. Accordingly they must be encouraged, not discouraged.

This looming catastrophe hasn't happened overnight, but clearly it has accelerated rapidly this past year. We‚Äôve trusted our politicians to do the right things, and clearly they‚Äôve betrayed that trust. You might give them the benefit of the doubt by saying they don''t understand the problems, but if that‚'s the case they should find another line of work.

Rather than playing the blame game, however, and God knows there's plenty of blame to spread around going back many years, let’s take the positive approach and just start solving the problems.

Quite frankly we have a mess, actually messes, almost beyond description, and they become increasingly unsolvable the longer we wait. We must start attacking them today. But it's going to take a unified, bipartisan approach, starting right now.

From a personal perspective I would greatly prefer not to be the one highlighting these extremely unpleasant issues. However as an American citizen, very worried about his country, and very worried about the future of his children, and someday their children, and all other people it's children, there is no choice --it must be done. There is, in fact, an obligation.

We can rekindle the American Dream, and we must, but we must get going. Our grandfathers and fathers would want it that way. Our children and grandchildren will be forever thankful.

All that talk about fiscal responsibility and Mr. Miller wants to waste millions of taxpayers' $$$ on a pod pork project.

A screenshot with a quote from Mr. Miller from a brochure (PDF) promoting PRT in Winona.... BTW, who paid for that brochure?

Taxpayers League Refuses to Take a Position on Public Funding of Pawlenty's Pod Boondoggle

Statement from the Taxpayers League:

I spoke with Phil and the Taxpayers League does not have a position on PRT at this time. Please feel free to check back later in the session or when developments on the project arise to see if there has been a change.

How much will the Winona PRT project cost taxpayers?

The Winona PRT plan would couple $20 million in federal grant dollars with $2.5 million in private investment and another $2.5 million in state bonding money, City Manager Eric Sorensen said. The City Council might vote next month on whether to ask local lawmakers to sponsor a bill seeking the state funds, Sorensen added.

"We'd love to see $25 million spent in Winona on job creation," he said, "and hopefully underpin a huge success story for the whole community."

Before Krinkie, David Strom was the head of the Taxpayers League. This is what he said about PRT on the Taxpayer League's Radio Show 1/1/2005:

I'll give you my take on this (PRT) First, Personal Rapid Transit already exists and it's called the automobile. Now, with that said the argument for the PRT system that exists out there is, well this is a way to add capacity very rapidly without... since it's elevated you don't have the same problems with having to knock down houses and various other things, y'know, but if you start looking at the system, the problem is there is no system. It doesn't really I mean, part of their argument is about how it failed somewhere else, "well, it's not really what we got here" and I say, well look, let's build it in Dubai. Let's build it where they want to throw tons of money at it. If it's so great, then we'll see. If not, why should we be subsidizing it?... certainly not to the tune of 600 million bucks... that's a ton of money...uh, it just doesn't make any sense to me..

Listen:

Click To Play

I'm not surprised that the Taxpayers League refuses to take a position... Phil Krinkie voted for former Rep. Mark Olson's PRT legislation when he was in the legislature.

If there is any question whether PRT is pork, give a listen to this video:



More info about the above video at Lloydletta.

Video: Tim Pawlenty & his PRT Pod Boondoggle

This 48 second video shows just how dumb Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is:



More info about MnDOT, Pawlenty and PRT:

Winona Daily News:

Winona officials gave new details Tuesday of their proposal to use state, federal and private funds for a PRT test lab at the Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical campus. They'll probably have to vie with other cities, as the Minnesota Department of Transportation soon may solicit proposals for PRT test sites elsewhere, a MnDOT official said Tuesday.

MNDOT press release:

Mn/DOT to explore personal rapid transit in symposiumdev

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The potential use of personal rapid transit (PRT) in Minnesota is the topic of a symposium to be hosted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation on Nov. 17 in Rochester, Minn. PRT is a public transportation concept that offers on-demand, non-stop transportation using small independent vehicles on a network of specially built guideways.

“PRT systems are being developed around the world,” Transportation Commissioner Tom Sorel said. “We need to explore innovative strategies that are efficient and cost-effective and can improve motorists’ commutes. Because transportation is a multimodal endeavor, we need to consider transit options for the traveling public.”

The symposium, which will take place at the Rochester Civic Center, will bring together community leaders and stakeholders, transportation officials and industry experts in PRT. It will look at the benefits of introducing PRT in the transportation network and will provide updates on recent advances in the system development.

Following the symposium, Mn/DOT will solicit letters of interest from Minnesota cities desiring more involvement with PRT.

Go to publictransit.us and download the white paper on pods in Winona, Minnesota (PDF).

Winona Daily News editorial about the pods.

Read notes from MnDOT invitation-only pod "seminar" in Rochester, Minnesota November 17, 2009.

MN 20/20: "Minnesota's Phantom Podcars"

The pod people have plans for Edina, St. Paul and Rochester too!

Who is former Rep. Mark Olson? Find out here.

New Paper Critical of PRT for Winona, MN

From Michael Setty at PublicTransit.US:

OK, OK, we have spent way much more time on PRT than it really deserves, however...As a favor to the taxpayers of Winona, Minnesota, and for future cases of other municipalities suffering from the "Music Man" style of PRT salesmanship when it comes to town, we have posted a new paper debunking Personal Rapid Transit, "Professor" Harold Hill Pitches PRT to a River City on the Mississippi in Minnesota. Link is www.publictransit.us/PRTDebunked1-WINONA.pdf. Even though this paper has been available only since the morning of Sunday, December 20th, it has already created quite a stir among the PRT hoi-polloi.

This is an excellent paper.

This paper will join Personal Rapid Transit – Cyberspace Dream Keeps Colliding With Reality and the Central Loop OKI report, and Professor Vukan Vuchic's writings as essential reading for citizens, public officials and investors who have been approached by the PRT guys.

Pawlenty's MnDOT to Waste Taxpayers' $$$ on a PRT Symposium?

MNDOT press release:

Mn/DOT to explore personal rapid transit in symposiumdev

ST. PAUL, Minn. – The potential use of personal rapid transit (PRT) in Minnesota is the topic of a symposium to be hosted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation on Nov. 17 in Rochester, Minn. PRT is a public transportation concept that offers on-demand, non-stop transportation using small independent vehicles on a network of specially built guideways.

“PRT systems are being developed around the world,” Transportation Commissioner Tom Sorel said. “We need to explore innovative strategies that are efficient and cost-effective and can improve motorists’ commutes. Because transportation is a multimodal endeavor, we need to consider transit options for the traveling public.”

The symposium, which will take place at the Rochester Civic Center, will bring together community leaders and stakeholders, transportation officials and industry experts in PRT. It will look at the benefits of introducing PRT in the transportation network and will provide updates on recent advances in the system development.

Following the symposium, Mn/DOT will solicit letters of interest from Minnesota cities desiring more involvement with PRT.

"Industry experts".... like Bill James?