I haven't been following the PRT Boondoggle as much as I used to, but this popped up on the Transport Innovators forum last summer:
Dear Shareholders:
This e-mail is being sent to let you know that the Taxi 2000 Corporation office at 8050 University Avenue NE, Fridley, MN 55432 is being closed and that all
operations will cease June 30, 2017. Our angel investor decided last year that it was no longer in a position to continue investments into the company in view
of their being no immediate prospects of a system contract. We have been unsuccessful in finding other investors, licensees or purchasers of the company assets
and we are now out of funds.
We thank the investor for supporting Taxi 2000 Corporation for more than a decade. We also thank all of the individuals that have supported the Company over its
entire history, whether that support has been through your labor, your financial contribution or your moral support.
While we still believe that it is a superior technology, in the history of inventions that has often proven to be insufficient to bring an idea to the
marketplace.
Sincerely,
Morrie Anderson,
Chairman
Taxi 2000 Corporation
8050 University Avenue NE
Fridley, MN 55432
"This is a company that's been around for a while and it's not produced a single pod system anywhere," Avidor said. "How do they produce a profit?"
This "moribund" company that injected itself noisily into nearly every public meeting about transit in Minnesota and elsewhere, that lobbied for taxpayers' dollars in city after city, now appears to have quietly and stealthily given up the ghost. But Taxi 2000 lives... on the internet, confusing citizens about reality-based transit policy forever. Here's one of many You Tube videos featuring Taxi 2000:
David Gow has several websites promoting Personal Rapid Transit. The Seattle "Get There Fast" PRT website - gettherefast.org seems to be slow in reporting on the new proposal for PRT in David Gow's backyard. The news page at Gow's "kinetic" PRT website is also silent about the CTA PRT Seattle project.
I have been aware for a few months that this organization -- 'CenTran' -- has been in the works. However I had been under the impression what it's about is Son Of Green Line.
Instead, it looks like they're intending a 16-mile monorail+PRT (pod transit) system in the West Seattle to Ballard corridors.
Gow goes on to address the pod aspect of the plan:
However, there are a number of practical issues here. By the time we are ready to do a technology screening (let alone select a design for installation), will these vendors be ready to deliver and operate what could be the largest pod system to date? Will their systems be sufficiently proven in regular operation?
Most of all, I personally object to this local effort being mounted by a small group, out of the public eye, creating yet another transit bureaucracy.
If PRT is going to be done here, it needs to be part of the existing decisionmaking structure. It needs to be done by Seattle or King County, or even Sound Transit. The latter had planned to do a PRT project as part of the Link program ( http://bit.ly/GN66Yg ), but the expected Raytheon PRT program was cancelled.
I have misgivings that High Capacity corridor service might be too much too soon for a flavor of PRT (HCPRT) that hasn't yet been implemented, anywhere.
Gow concludes that the problem with the CTA pod/monorail plan is really institutional:
It's OK to hypothesize something that ambitious. But set up a whole new bureaucracy? Really?
Furthermore, local planning for circulation PRT and collector-distributor PRT have been done in SeaTac and Issaquah. We should look first at those service niches.
Will David Gow report his opposition to the Seattle monorail/PRT project at Examiner.com or his PRT promoting websites?
One of the many unfounded claims of Personal Rapid Transit promoters is that PRT can pay for itself. Here's what then-Senator Michele Bachmann told Minnesota Public Radio:
Supporters range from Minneapolis City Council member Dean Zimmerman, a Green Party member, to Republican Sen. Michelle Bachmann of Stillwater. Bachmann says personal rapid transit, like many political issues, creates strange bedfellows.
"People on the right, people on the left, we have the common goal of moving people with transit, but doing it in the most cost-effective manner, in fact, in a manner that may end up costing no government subsidy, it may end up paying for itself," she says.
Taxi 2000 says PRT could be paid for by fares and private investors.
At the MnDOT PRT workshop last year (PDF), former Minneapolis Councilman Dean Zimmermann made a similar claim:
In terms of cost, the legislature is willing to spend all kinds of costs to subsidize all these kinds of transportation. No one is dif-ferentiating between capital cost and operat-ing cost … Every single vendor in here will tell you if we build this system, it will pay back its cost with revenue. Light rail takes $10 million a year of public subsidy. The bus system, 25 percent paid for by users, and let’s not even go into the automobile, the most heavily subsidized transportation system. PRT is the only system mentioned that will pay for itself in terms of operating cost.
I saw Dean Zimmermann tabling for the Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit (CPR) at the 6th Annual Sustainable Communities Conference in downtown Minneapolis, so I was able to ask him to explain how PRT could pay for itself:
Of course, transit systems cannot survive without subsidies, But, in these tough fiscal times, it is a claim that cash-strapped citizens and public officials may want to hear. This comment on a forum explains why subsidy-free PRT is a fantasy:
First, you say that PRT will pay for itself. This is preposterous. You have a system that has low volume and will need extremely sophisticated infrastructure. There is no way, theoretically, that you can have such a system that will pay for itself.
Second, no genuine PRT system has been built anywhere ever. So you have no proof to back up your argument there.
Third, every time they try building a PRT system, they go to local governments to ask for money. So that's just proof of more fantasizing on your part.
Finally, ALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS COST MONEY. It's just that systems such as light rail are the very systems that Detroit grew up around. So when we talk about light rail, it is a serious investment with proven gains that works in other cities -- and has worked here before. That is why light rail is credible, and why such untried, never-implemented systems as PRT are a joke.
Also interesting is that the CPRT continues to make the creepy and bogus claim that people don't like riding with "strangers" (click on the picture to make it bigger):
Recent news about the ongoing, worldwide pod boondoggle:
It's sad to read about yet another community wasting time on Personal Rapid Transit, but at least Mr. Lawlor has reported fairly the pros and cons of PRT. Lawlor quotes the indefatigable, pod-promoting Larry Fabian. The article also quotes retired Professor Vukan Vuchic:
"People study it a lot, but when it's closer to actually building it, it never gets done."
Google the following cities with "Personal Rapid Transit"; Daventry, Duluth, Minneapolis, Winona, Long Branch, Indianapolis, Rosemount, Seattle, Cincinnati, Ithaca, Alameda, Denver... all had a similar experience with PRT - the pod promoters came to town with lots of media hype, PowerPoint presentations, promises, demands... and months, years later... nothing.
What never happens is any meaningful citizen participation - this is what I wrote in the Winona Daily News:
Boston Personal Rapid Transit promoter Lawrence J. Fabian in his Sept. 23 letter chided the citizens of Winona for their lack of enthusiasm for the PRT plan proposed by the city of Winona.
“If Winona wants to think small,” scolds Fabian.
An interesting criticism when you consider that Winonans never really had an opportunity to comment or ask questions in a public forum about the PRT project.
According to a Jan. 20 article in the Winona Daily News, a meeting where the public could have asked questions was for Winona City Council members only, “While there was little discussion of PRT during the meeting, the vote came after council members examined the system during a pre-council informational session that lasted more than one hour.”
I recall a similar PRT “informational session” for Minneapolis city officials only on March 26, 2005. When a proposal for a PRT project later came up for a vote in committee, the PRT promoters failed to show up and the matter was tabled. More recently, public officials in Daventry, England, complained that PRT promoters would not show up at public forums to answer questions. The Minnesota Department of Transportation held a “PRT workshop” Aug. 18, which cost $50 to attend and was not a public meeting. Why are PRT promoters avoiding the public?
When the city of Winona revisits the issue of PRT, as it has recently indicated it would, I would suggest they hold a free, public forum and invite critics as well as promoters. I would also suggest inviting experts in the field; transit engineers, transit advocacy groups and environmental groups. But most of all, I urge Winona city officials to invite the public.
Grassroots support for any big public project is essential. For it is the citizens who will end up paying for it— and if built, living with it.
Hopefully, the citizens and public officials of Newport News will avoid wasting time and money on PRT by insisting on open and meaningful public participation in the decision-making process.
At present, Heathrow airport is the only place where the pod is operational. While it is right now being used by the airport staff, the commercial operations will start soon after Christmas.
Well, it's after New Years and the "news" from the ULTra January Newsletter is that they are still testing, testing , testing...
1. November Heathrow “revenue service trials” produce excellent results
The four weeks of "Simulated Revenue Service" trial - intended to mimic real operating conditions - using Terminal 5 staff as passengers - is now complete. This involved operation of the system for 10.5 hr each day of the trial period. During these trials ULTra achieved a System Availability - defined as the ability for any passenger to travel to any station during any given minute -- of 99.6%. For comparison, most APMs (Automatic People Movers) in similar applications function with availability levels between 97.5% and 99.5%, and are more reliable than manually-driven alternatives. Among all transit modes, ULTra's debut performance puts it near the front of the pack in terms of delivering proven reliability.
So why not open it to the public? What are they afraid of?
Meanwhile, ULTra gives us an picture (see below) what an elevated PRT station would look like. Heathrow doesn't have a free=standing elevated station. Plans for city-wide PRT systems would have scores of these huge, ugly stations, festooned with advertising. Note the pylons sunk in the middle of the sidewalk. Very pedestrian-un-friendly:
According to a presentation by Martin Lowson (available at the ATRA website) the new launch window was supposed to be "Mid 2010":
Testing of the PRT System is continuing and, with all installation and communications challenges now resolved, we anticipate commencing passenger services in late Spring 2010." This is what I'd call a joint BAA/ATS approved statement. http://www.ultraprt.com/cms/index.php?page=latest-schedule
That link is broken. Here's a screenshot:
Well, when June arrived we got this info via a tweet from the PRT Guru that linked to his website where we found this statement:
June 2010: It appears ULTra will not meet its previously-announced June opening date at London’s Heathrow Airport. BAA has issued the following statement: "The Heathrow pod is innovative technology and we have always said that the system will be launched when it is ready to do so. The system, as well as being a world first, is bespoke [customized] to fit into existing airport infrastructure and the process of completing this is informing our decision about the launch date. Testing is continuing and we anticipate that the system will officially launch in the near future."
"The Heathrow pod is innovative technology and we have always said that the system will be launched when it is ready to do so. The system, as well as being a world first, is bespoke (custom-made) to fit into existing airport infrastructure and the process of completing this is informing our decision about the launch date. Testing is continuing and we anticipate that the system will officially launch in the near future." - BAA's schedule statement, June 2010.
It's not surprising that the effect of these postponements of the much-publicized ULTra have made public officials skeptical, even irritated at PRT promoters as explained in this video:
The PRT hucksters like to claim the pods are a "new technology". PRT is neither new or a technology.
PRT is an argument - an argument that conventional transit is not "faster, better, cheaper" than so-called "innovative transportation technologies", PRT being one of them. The problem is futuristic pie-in-the-sky gadgetbahn PRT schemes exist only as unproven concepts. At times, the PRT hucksters produced prototype pods or even a test track... but there really is no there, there.
The anti-transit arguments of the PRT hucksters of today or no different than when they wore sideburns and bell bottoms.
Minnpost: What's your reaction to Gov.-elect Dayton reappointing Tom Sorel as transportation commissioner?
Frank Hornstein: He's a breath of fresh air at MnDOT and a good advocate for a multimodal approach to transportation. The only complaint I have is that he has embraced PRT (personal rapid transit) in a way that's not helpful. It's something suitable for an amusement park and a distraction from the bigger challenges we face.
With Republicans in control of the MN legislature, there has never been a better opportunity for the PRT hucksters to get a PRT bill passed.
They get the money from all of us. I am not sure where you are, but if I call a help line here, almost any Company, I get to talk to somebody in India. As many services as possible have been out-sourced to India and Pakistan, and the people who held the jobs here are on welfare or working in a coffee shop. This is called "progress", I think, or "maximizing profits".
It is the result of our Universities ( both Countries) deciding that it is more profitable to educate foreign students instead of our own. These students then return home and start up businesses to compete with out local businesses, and they pay lower salaries, so they win every time.
Terrorism and Transportation Choice Thu, 2010/02/04 - 12:00am
Dennis, we went through the whole buildup of aviation mostly in the years 1945 to 2000 without having to restrict firearms on aircraft.
During thise years, can you name me one problem that ever occurred, or one persin that was ever injured? If you can, it certainly did not ever get published in the aircraft accident and incident reports that I was reading constantly during that period.
Lesser of 2 evils....which would you prefer,(1) a trained, armed, passenger or (2) a terrorist who has total freedom to kill everybody on board? If you really want to put the fear of Allah into these terrorists, you should make it be known that ALL your bullets have been dipped in pig blood. All the Military bullets, too.
This does look like it may be our Transportation expert. It might be best to find out him, just to be prepared. Artists just HATE criticism. Why don't we do what we can to interfere with HIS way of makung a living? Remember: DONT GET MAD, GET EVEN. Jack Slade
In our view, it is a big waste of time advocating such "gee-whiz" options, given the severe limits of monorails and similar technologies such as PRT, when U.S. transportation problems are almost always sociopolitical and economic–not technical–in nature.
Demery returns to the subject in "Where's the Gadgetbahn?" at publictransit.us
The introduction:
If there is a country where Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) "should" work and "should" already have been built, then it's Japan.
Having traveled extensively throughout that country over the past three decades, I shall take this a step farther: if there is a place in Japan where PRT "should" work - and "should" already been built - then it's _____.
One could fill in the "blank" above with a number of locations, based on empirical observation of the built environment. During the past five years, maps and aerial photo images became available online and quality has been improved steadily. It is now possible to study the urban geography of Japan, "armchair" style, whether or not one has any knowledge of Japanese. This series shall present several examples of locations in Japan where the built environment appears conducive to PRT development. It shall also consider results obtained by other transport modes, e.g. automated guideway transport (AGT), in specific locations.
The Personal Rapid Transit movement (PRT) that Michele Bachmann once sponsored legislation for and promoted in the media has all but fizzled out. Much-hyped PRT projects at Masdar and Heathrow failed to enter revenue service as per schedule. Cities that expressed "interest" in PRT - Ithaca, NY, Daventry, UK and Winona, MN failed to get funding or public approval for PRT.
With nearly a half century of failure, the PRT guys (rebranded "podcar") met one more time last month in San Jose, CA.
The first thing I noticed is that the average age at this conference, held at San Jose City Hall, was over 50, with a very large percentage over 60 years of age and 90%+ male. The second thing was that 20%-25% of the attendees were Swedish; presumably the Swedish government sees a potentially large export market in funding PRT, particularly Vectus and its efforts to establish pilot projects in a few Swedish cities. Third, a large percentage of attendees were clearly either exhibitors or consultants. I’d be surprised if more than 50% of Podcar City attendees were either PRT activists or potential customers, such as the City of San Jose who cosponsored the conference.
The usual suspects in the PRT world were present, such as J. Edward Anderson and the hierarchy of the Advanced Transit Assocation (ATRA), as one would expect.
The first session I caught at the end was about finances and a discussion of the mechanics of fare collection. Afterwards, I had brief conversation with conference organizer, Christer Lindstrom, regarding the many issues with fare collection, such as the cost of enforcement--the issues go well beyond how the money is collected, per se (BTW, Christer, thanks for the free conference pass).
There are things that will increase costs, for example, if turnstiles are installed at every PRT station. Turnstiles add $250,000-$500,000 per station, plus ongoing costs for maintenance, cash collection, security monitoring and so forth. If a PRT system goes with a barrier free system like most LRT systems in the U.S., these costs would be lower, but operating costs for stations would be higher than most PRT advocates claim.
One major point is that most PRT stations would be low volume and very hard to justify the capital and ongoing expense of turnstiles and sporadic fare inspections, at best, would be required to minimize fare evasion.
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.
The website for the Podcar City conference in San Jose October 27-29, 2010 has a page devoted to the recent PRT workshop last month. If you go to the bottom of the page, next to a photo of MnDOT Commisioner Thomas Sorel, there's a PRT map with the following description:
Minneapolis Personal Rapid Transit Map Legend (a Concept Plan) Map submitted by former Council Member Dean Zimmermann.
Under the map is the following contact info (redacted for this blog):
Comments or questions can be directed to the author: Dean Zimmermann deanzimm@****** 612-***-****
The map shows a plan for a 68 station PRT system serving downtown Minneapolis and some high density housing area to the south. The PRT Web Area would serve the densest housing area in the entire State of Minnesota.
The Podcar conference newsletter also has the map and contact info for Zimmermann.
Click on the screenshot to make it bigger:
In addition to taking bribes, Dean Zimmermann tried to convince real estate developer and government witness Gary Carlson to invest $250,000 in PRT:
Last year, I videotaped Zimmermann protesting reality-based transit and promoting Personal Rapid Transit at a transportation forum. Zimmermann gave me a tortured explanation for accepting cash from FBI witness Gary Carlson and refused to sign a waiver for the FBI tapes shown at this trial:
Members of the LRT-hating/pod-promoting Citizens for Personal Rapid Transit (CPRT) also spread the nonsensical conspiracy theory that Zimmermann was framed:
BAA has to go through a competitive tendering process, but if its selects Ultra the system could be in place at Heathrow by 2006
Richard Teychenne, ATS business development manager, said the key difference between Ultra and its competitors would be its flexibility, as it was for small groups of people
He said: "We have in this country the idea that public transport has to move people in big vehicles. But 90% of journeys are made in cars. Our system is like a network of automatic taxis or an elevator: you punch in where you want to go." The system could eventually see passengers punching in the reference code of their flight and being taken to the correct terminal. Ultra is being considered by 20 councils in the UK, including Swindon in Wiltshire, Corby in Northampton and Cardiff, as well as authorities abroad, with a possible view to delivering passengers from park-and-ride facilities directly to individual shops. Teychenne also met Greater London Authority officials this week to look at how the system could be adapted to the Olympic village
For six long years during which the pod people kept up an incessant PRT publicity barrage and yet the ULTra PRT at Heathrow is not in revenue service as predicted. What happened with the "20 councils in the UK" ? The much-hyped Daventry PRT experiment ended in fiasco when more than a hundred angry Daventry townspeople packed a meeting . They even put up a Say No To Daventry's P.R.T System Facebook page.
I recently received this response from Richard Teychenne concerning the ULTra pods at Heathrow:
I am sorry for the delay in replying I have been away for two weeks. I am not sure where the June idea came from as we have not agreed any dates with the customer BAA for the service to start. Our intention has always been to have the system ready for operations to start in the late summer of 2010. However when this actually happens is at the discretion of our customer BAA.
The current position is we are running passenger trials with a small number of real airport customers every day to allow the operators to gain familiarity with the system. This is ongoing and the system is working well.
Personally I do not expect BAA to want to make any announcements while there are ongoing negative news stories at Heathrow such as the BA and BAA industrial actions. Unfortunately this means that we have no way of knowing when they will actually allow us to officially open. It is also possible that they will not want to have a formal opening announcement because this may cause them other media issues and media management is generally their top priority. We may find that we are allowed to gradually move to full operation unannounced later this summer.
Ken, the June mention you may have picked up was a delay in the passenger trials schedule in June because we were asked to change the communications frequency the system uses to avoid any potential for interference with other airport systems. This necessitated a change in the wifi communications network setup. ULTra uses a communications network which is similar to the mobile wifi networks for mobile phones and laptops in offices. This change required our wifi supplier changing and retesting the fixed antennas on the system and the corresponding components in the vehicles. All of the work required was completed in June.
Richard Teychenne states " I am not sure where the June idea came from". That's interesting. According to a presentation by Martin Lowson (available at the ATRA website) the new launch window is in "Mid 2010":
Testing of the PRT System is continuing and, with all installation and communications challenges now resolved, we anticipate commencing passenger services in late Spring 2010." This is what I'd call a joint BAA/ATS approved statement. http://www.ultraprt.com/cms/index.php?page=latest-schedule
That link is broken. Here's a screenshot:
Well, when June arrived we got this info via a tweet from the PRT Guru that linked to his website where we found this statement:
June 2010: It appears ULTra will not meet its previously-announced June opening date at London’s Heathrow Airport. BAA has issued the following statement: "The Heathrow pod is innovative technology and we have always said that the system will be launched when it is ready to do so. The system, as well as being a world first, is bespoke [customized] to fit into existing airport infrastructure and the process of completing this is informing our decision about the launch date. Testing is continuing and we anticipate that the system will officially launch in the near future."
"The Heathrow pod is innovative technology and we have always said that the system will be launched when it is ready to do so. The system, as well as being a world first, is bespoke (custom-made) to fit into existing airport infrastructure and the process of completing this is informing our decision about the launch date. Testing is continuing and we anticipate that the system will officially launch in the near future." - BAA's schedule statement, June 2010.
Apparently there were earlier, scrubbed launches of the glorified golf carts of Heathrow according to this BBC report from 2009:
In less than two years' time, after the opening of Heathrow's Terminal 5 in March 2008, a network of 18 of these four-seater capsules will be ferrying passengers to and from a business car park to the new terminal building.
It's not surprising that the effect of these postponements of the much-hype ULTra have made public officials skeptical, even irritated at PRT promoters as explained in this video:
So, six years on (more if you count the failed attempt to bring pods to Cardiff, Wales) and the fabled ULTra pods are moving to India. Here's the news report... how many chances do these PRT guys get?
Last Thursday, I attended a presentation sponsored by the Carolina Transportation Program where Steve Raney essentially gave his sales pitch for the idea of PRT. Raney is a transportation planner and consultant with Advanced Transport Systems Inc. who is driving development opportunities for ULTra’s concept.
Its main success so far is seen at London’s Heathrow Airport where they are in the construction phase at Terminal 5. The system will connect passengers directly to the car park, but is envisioned to expand in the future connecting to other amenities like hotels. The idea has several selling points: 95% of passengers will have to wait less than 1 minute for a car; all the vehicles are battery-powered (making it green); and, the cars do not require drivers since they run on a closed system.
But, Raney didn’t focus much on the Heathrow project; instead, he spent most of his time selling the more general idea of PRT as a design solution
Yeah, like what's there to focus on?
Just another hilarious episode in a long list of flops and fiascos for the pod people - let's review the most recent:
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.
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:
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.
Richard Gronning, described on his Linkedin page as an "advisor, coordinator at PRT Partners LLC" and "Board Member at Citizens for PRT" (more about the CPRT in the previous post) made this startling statement on the Transport Innovators Google forum today:
1. It was Tom Sorel that organized the PRT Symposium in Rochester, MN.
2. It was Tom Sorel that chose Mukhtar Thakur as MN DOT'S PRT coordinator because he has the reputation of getting things done.
3. Think about it! PRT is the most advanced form of ITS.
4. MN DOT has to think about and include ALL types of solutions or the (Luddite) politicians will be all over Tom.
5. Tom Sorel already has had to defend MN DOT and his office over the 1st PRT event. I've heard stories where a few of the politicians were screaming at him in the hall of the MN Gov./DOT building. I've been told that he soothed the situation and made his point very well.
The following is the purpose for the MnDOT-sponsored workshop scheduled for tomorrow:
Updated Purpose: The purpose of this workshop is to share responses to Mn/DOT’s request for PRT information and to allow participants to understand PRT benefits and barriers to its implementation. Workshop participants will also discuss next steps in exploring the viability of PRT in Minnesota, including principles to guide PRT service implementation, financing options, and organizational and governance approaches.
Seems to me one of the "barriers" to public-funding of PRT is self-inflicted; if the PRT promoters want public officials to give them money, they shouldn't trash them on the internet.
Once again, here's a list of recent pod flops and fiascos:
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.
"Generally speaking it seems to be a good system. It is well-suited to Heathrow where there is a constant stream of people heading to different places.
"We will need to look at it again once it is being used in volume. And it is only one transport option being looked at for Daventry.
No mention in the article why the ULTra PRT June launch was scrubbed or why the Daventry District Council continues to promote PRT after their previous attempts to bring pods to Daventry ended in fiasco.
Once again, here's a list of recent pod flops and fiascos:
"Columbia [Maryland] failed to win a federal grant for a futuristic PRT that would have allowed riders to board driverless cars, key in their destination and proceed nonstop along elevated guideways." - Columbia Flyer [ explorehoward.com ] )(yes, this is history, but new info for this blog)
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.
Terrorism and Transportation Choice Thu, 2010/02/04 - 12:00am
Dennis, we went through the whole buildup of aviation mostly in the years 1945 to 2000 without having to restrict firearms on aircraft.
During thise years, can you name me one problem that ever occurred, or one persin that was ever injured? If you can, it certainly did not ever get published in the aircraft accident and incident reports that I was reading constantly during that period.
Lesser of 2 evils....which would you prefer,(1) a trained, armed, passenger or (2) a terrorist who has total freedom to kill everybody on board? If you really want to put the fear of Allah into these terrorists, you should make it be known that ALL your bullets have been dipped in pig blood. All the Military bullets, too.
Jack Slade
Here's Jack Slade's video of his Skytrax PRT model:
Jack Slade got himself onto the list of would -be PRT vendors on the City of San Jose website:
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.
It may be a DEM - REP thing. The democrats have been lobbied to death by the LRT folks. Our CPRT group did informational lobbying a few years back. The republicans would hear us out, but the democrats would either not see us, or show us glazed-over eyes. "That's REAL nice!" And, out-a here.
I doubt if he even knows what PRT stands for let alone what it looks like. Things ARE changing, but maybe not where this guy comes from. It IS true that SWE/T2C made the first bid on the project. The mayor is enamored with T2C. The idea behind the effort is to prove a Minnesota-based system. He doesn't get that either.
Notice he is not even asking for the funding but is personally standing in the way. How much does it cost him to ask the question? I did not have the time to submit TriTrack to Minn. I have enough snakes to kill around here but perhaps I should have submitted something to show support for my buds in Minn.
Michael D. Setty: PRT will ‘work,' but it won't be worth it
Larry Fabian of Boston is correct that personal rapid transit will technically "work," like the technologically clever Segway also "works." Segways were touted as a "transportation revolution" but to date have found only a few practical uses, such as tourist rentals and as a ride for security guards.
In 99 percent of the cases where PRT evangelists like Fabian think PRT is applicable, creative application of proven transit technologies will be far more economic, quicker to implement and attractive to would-be riders.
Consider the conceptual "Quality Bus" network proposed for Winona as an alternative to PRT in my December 2009 paper (available at www.publictransit.us/PRTDebunked1-WINONA.pdf).
A full PRT system serving Winona, realistically, would cost around $300 million to $400 million, plus conservatively costing $8 million to $11 million annually to operate - with an assumption very generous to PRT that it would attract around 4 million passengers annually.
In contrast, I estimated a quality bus network running every 10 to 15 minutes all day, built around proven transit planning principles, will cost about $35 million, plus about $3.4 million to $3.5 million annually to operate.
Conservatively, a quality bus network will attract 2 million to 3 million annual riders, assuming supporting parking and other policies at Winona State University and by the city.
I thought common sense and practicality were the hallmarks of being a Midwesterner.
So why have the parking problems at Winona State University continued to use up a lot of ink, unlike many Midwestern university towns where tighter parking rules and frequent, attractive transit networks have mitigated the issue?
Bloomington, Ind., Champaign-Urbana, Ill., Lafayette, Ind., Macomb, Ill., and many other communities have achieved balance between parking and attractive bus networks.
Certainly Winona can too - if there is a will while avoiding fanciful diversions such as PRT.
A comment:
The voice of reason has surfaced.
If it could only be heard by the narrow of mind who dreamed that this idea had any merit at all.
As we observed, Mall of America we are not! Where is our common sense?
ultraprt.com content has moved to ultraprt.net atsltd.co.uk content will soon move to ultraprt.com. We are attempting to support some of the old ultraprt.com pages on the new ultraprt.com so that web sites that link to us won't get too broken. This will all take some time and some links will break. Sorry for the inconvenience.
The domain ultraprt.net was apparently registered recently - no mention of ownership:
Registered through: WebDomains4u.com Domain Name: ULTRAPRT.NET Created on: 12-Mar-10 Expires on: 12-Mar-11 Last Updated on: 22-Mar-10
Who knows why there are now 3 websites for a company with a product that's still under wraps... my guess is this means ATS ULTra has given up selling their glorified golf carts in Minnesota.
.jpg)
