Recent Comments

Comments

J wrote "I agree that PRT systems comes with all the downsides of cars..."

That's not true. PRT has most of the benefits of cars, like point-to-point personal travel, but here is a list of very significant automobile downsides that PRT does NOT have:

* fatal accidents - automobiles are a menace, killing tens of thousands of people a year, many of them pedestrians. PRT will be safer by orders of magnitude, and will NEVER kill a pedestrian.

* local emissions - PRT systems have no exhaust, as all existing systems are electric.

* huge space requirement - automobiles require a much larger space than PRT systems. An ULTra guideway, for example, is about 7 feet wide and less than 2 feet thick, and is light enough to be elevated on a narrow-gauge column every 50 feet. Compare that to a freeway onramp which is many times larger in each dimension. Compare also to a city street lane, which is 10-12 feet wide and consumes valuable street space.

* huge parking requirement - this is perhaps the most overlooked drawback of the car. Every car that enters a city requires at least 200 square feet of parking space. Contrast this with a PRT station, which is perhaps 1000 square feet and can accept 500 vehicle arrivals per hour - that's 1000 square feet of station space which saves 100,000 square feet (500*200) of street parking. Also, the PRT station can be elevated or put in existing buildings, so the street level impact is theoretically zero.

The assertion that PRT comes with "all the downsides of cars" is not at all supportable.

by Mike C in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 13, 2010 9:22 am

The biggest "PRT" in use is in the harbour of Rotterdam! Since 1993 they use "Agv" to transport the containers in one of the biggest harbours of the world!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_guided_vehicle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VlBCJhwxXE

"Prt" is underneath the same, but made comfortable for human use!
"atv"'s are also used in factoris all over the world!
So saying "prt" is untested and unfeasable is deniïng the facts!
It's already around for years, but you just did not see it because it looked different!
It's like cars and busses! They look different, but are basicly the same!

by jc in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 13, 2010 9:16 am

When it comes to building a church, I highly recommend four readings:

Bruggink & Droppers: Christ and Architecture. Written for the Reformed tradition by 95% applicable to Anglicanism.

Anson, Peter F: Fashions in Church Furnishings.

Dearmer, Percy: Parsons Handbook. Passages on urban church architecture.

Sayers, Dorothy: The Zeal of Thy House. Play about rebuilding after a fire. Reproduce? Build cheaply? Go with the latest fashion?

by Paul Woodrum in Church Street church could rise from 1970 ashes on Mar 13, 2010 7:59 am

@David desJardins: Your reading of the law is completely wrong.

Perhaps. Some of the provisions seem pretty clear to me, but I'm not a lawyer. I suppose the city will hold hearings and we'll find out.

by David desJardins in Should Chinatown be Times Square? on Mar 13, 2010 2:02 am

To me, the solution to this debate is simple. They are building a PRT system in two places. Let them try them out, and when/if they work in real life, not just in someone's theoretical plan, then American municipalities can begin giving some of their limited resources to PRT.

The main problem with PRT is the amount of proprietary technology in the major systems. And in order to get them really running long-term, you can't have vendor lock-in, like you do with monorails and maglev.

by Neil Flanagan in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 10:57 pm

kk, that's a good question. The basic issue is this: operating at the street level is an immensely more complicated problem because you have to deal with unpredictable cross traffic. A street level "PRT" would have to "know" how to avoid pedestrians, cyclists, and other street vehicles. On a fully separated guideway, PRT control is very simple because every vehicle on the guideway is under tight control, its exact position known to millimeter accuracy. With such predictability, it is relatively trivial to coordinate vehicle movements even at small separations.

Technology is improving, and there is debate as to whether street-level "PRT" -- commonly termed "robocars" -- will be feasible in the near future. There are very interesting developments in this area, but personally I don't believe they will be practical for real world use for at least a decade, maybe several decades. Others disagree and believe it will be here sooner. It's not here today, except for a few systems that allow low speed operation in pedestrian-only settings.

In other words, PRT today requires an exclusive guideway, and that situation may not change for decades. Note: the guideway doesn't absolutely need to be elevated -- it could be put in tunnels or cut-and-cover channels, or placed in the medians of highways. As long as it's an exclusive right-of-way.

Personally, I don't mind a low-profile elevated guideway, as long as the profile is slim and the vehicles are quiet. I've seen monorails that are barely noticeable -- in fact, I was once standing directly beneath a monorail line and didn't even realize it for several minutes, even though trains had passed by. PRT would be similarly unobtrusive. But this is a matter of taste, and I can respect those who are concerned about the aesthetic impact.

As for handling failures, PRT systems are designed to aircraft-level reliability, with checked-redundant and fail-safe components. Vehicle breakdowns on the guideway should be exceedingly rare in a well designed and maintained system. For example, the 1970s-era Cabintaxi design had a full test track in Germany which ran 2 dozen vehicles for more than a year without a single fault. Now, in the rare event that there is a vehicle failure, systems have different procedures to handle it, but it basically comes down to: (1) immediately reroute vehicles around the breakdown, (2) for those vehicles behind the breakdown with no way forward, the guideway behind can be cleared and the trapped vehicles can back up to the nearest diverge point and route around, (3) for the stalled vehicle, a tow-vehicle can be sent to bring it into the nearest station. Some systems allow any other pod to act as a tow vehicle.

Note again, this should be exceedingly rare for systems designed to aircraft-level reliability. Think of how infrequently there is a crash of a major commercial airliner; well-designed PRT should exhibit similar reliability.

by Mike C in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 10:43 pm

I mentioned the miami metromover when this series of posts started. I just wanted to say thanks for making that great graphic.

I agree that PRT systems comes with all the downsides of cars, and the straight to lobby arrival means empty streets.

by J in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 10:22 pm

Ben, you will never build on the Methodist Cemetery. It's inconveniently located, but it's one of the 6-7 things in Tenleytown that is genuinely historic.

Stossel is amazingly low-brow. I am impressed to see the critiques coming from AmCon; my conservative friends have quickly joined the sprawl-is-artificial crowd when challenged to think about it.

by Neil Flanagan in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 10:12 pm

BeyondDC exhibits exactly the kind of mindless anti-PRT bigotry that prevents real discussion on the merits and possibilities of this technology. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

See part 4 of this series for a more rational criticism of PRT. I've already commented on that thread, because obviously the CRITIC who wrote that piece it actually READ about PRT and understands that it deserves a real discussion, not mindless smears. BeyondDC and others are not critics or skeptics, they're ignorant blowhards who don't even bother to read up on the systems they're smearing.

by Mike C in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 10:09 pm

1. I have not read Pevsner. I have avoided him. I'm sorry that you're now opposed to intellectual considerations of architecture. But it really does matter, especially when you're claiming that the Modern movement totally rejected beauty. Besides, this is yesterday's fight. Modernism was never truly unified, and even the biggest revivalists aren't doing quite the same things they did.

2. Yes, I have "designed" a building. But you wouldn't like it. Have you?

3. Again, I'm not defending the modernist strawmen you think I am. I have critiqued the logic of a few particular comments. The use of church precedents is useful, but is not absolutely necessary. Critiquing the building for its style is something I thought we agreed to get past. Look around you and wonder why downtown looks specifically like romeparis or why there's an english village in Cleveland Park and then tell me that the International Style is placeless.

by Neil Flanagan in Church Street church could rise from 1970 ashes on Mar 12, 2010 10:04 pm

Excellent use of punctuation. From now on, I will always spell the word "libertarian."

by DavidDuck in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 9:53 pm

It's quite all right Mr. Woodrum. The record is quite clear on the rejection of beauty from modernism's early manifestos, what ever your interpretation of those texts. Could you explain how it is that you can judge a neo-gothic church to be faux, while this neo-modernist box isn't also? It sounds like you might be an expert in proclaiming the Gospel, which I certainly am not, but I know hypocrisy when I hear it.
Judge not, lest you be judged?

by Thayer-D in Church Street church could rise from 1970 ashes on Mar 12, 2010 9:20 pm

Harry was a tireless advocate who was never worn down by seemingly endless delays and setbacks. Only a month ago, he was on a Purple Line Now! conference call bringing us up to date on Planning Board issues. I think what I'll miss most is his energy and warmth that made all of us of that generation feel renewed strength when we worked with him.

by Craig Simpson in Transit activist Harry Sanders dies on Mar 12, 2010 8:14 pm

Hmmm....maybe not such a great idea to tear down that school afterall. Hmmm....

by Jazzy in Bruce-Monroe to get "temporary urbanism" over parking lot on Mar 12, 2010 8:03 pm

Thanks for the thoughtful tribute to a dedicated civic activist. One error in your intro - While Harry's health woes go back a few years, they did not distract him from his continued efforts to keep the Purple Line moving forward until very recently.

by Webb Smedley in Transit activist Harry Sanders dies on Mar 12, 2010 7:44 pm

One thing I would add, because I didn't see mentioned, is that elevated rails over streets do not HAVE to be big iron latticework monstrosities like the example this blog showed in Queens. Philadelphia just recently went through a humongous reconstruction of the Market Street El in West Philly. They completely tore down the old Queens-like iron monstrosity and replaced with a modern concrete guideway. I put a Google Maps link at the end of this post.

The most important difference is that the old iron monstrosity had supports on both sides of the road. The new system has a single row of supports down the middle of the road. This makes a huge difference because the old thing kept the road and made it very dark and foreboding. The new street is visibly much more airier and less in shadow. That's not a trivial difference when you see it. Presumably a new elevated Silver Line would look much more like the new Philly El than the old.

I would also add - during construction Market Street looked like a war zone and a lot of businesses closed due to lack of foot and car traffic. However, I don't know that Tysons Corner would have the same issue, since building a new El from scratch is much, much easier, than gradually tearing down an old El and THEN building a new structure. Plus, West Philly is like NYC, with many buildings just 10-20 feet from the train.

It's too early to say for sure, but now that El construction is done the neighborhood does seem to be slowly on the rebound.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=philadelphia,+pa&sll=37.544413,-77.469897&sspn=0.009051,0.013797&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Philadelphia,+Pennsylvania&ll=39.958701,-75.215149&spn=0,359.912109&z=14&layer=c&cbll=39.958813,-75.215796&panoid=5RVK8STlRrOzXwnJKwM8YA&cbp=12,284.69,,0,9.54

by Marc in Do elevated rails inhibit sustainable, walkable urban places? on Mar 12, 2010 6:55 pm

Sorry, Thayer, but modernism did not eschew beauty. It eschewed ornamentation. The two are not the same. Anyway, the primary issue shouldn't be 'beauty' but how well the new structure will proclaim the Gospel by enabling the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer in a holy space. They may strike some people as 'churchy' but faux reproductions and neighborly compatibility seldom achieve any of that

Paul Woodrum
Challwood Liturgical Arts Studio
New York

by Paul Woodrum in Church Street church could rise from 1970 ashes on Mar 12, 2010 6:50 pm

Use taxis and bikes on highly congested roadways in Tysons? Sounds delightful. Elevated guideways are not fantasies and they are not needed "everywhere" - which not be safe, secure, able to enjoy the view and get to where you need to be quickly without stopping.

by jasper in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 6:02 pm

Unfortunately, the Kornmeister was correct when he said, "Last time I looked the roads were made for automobiles." That is exactly the problem which is being addressed by the addition of bicycle lanes.

@eleventh

Hear, hear!

by Matthias in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 6:02 pm

Is it possible to take the PRT concept and have it move along the road instead of being elevated or have a separate track.

For the ones that use magnets couldn't they just take one and a half lanes from the street and use it for one lane in each direction for this ?

The number one problem with this concept is building a new elevated track we should be using what we already have; what will happen when the next big thing occurs abandon this like we did many other technologies over the past 150 years but leave the structures in place.

Is just an ugly version of the automated cars from minority report and other film.

So what happens during an crash/derailment/powerfaliure is the whole thing backed up and how long would it take to fix the problem since it would be just like a typical train than with grade separated tracks and being hard to get to in general.

I know people may not want to think about that but it is a concern and there needs to be a way around it.

by kk in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 5:56 pm

Thank you for posting this. Harry was a true hero for civic activists, smart growthers, the people of MoCo and anyone who cares about a better world.

by Adam Pagnucco in Transit activist Harry Sanders dies on Mar 12, 2010 5:31 pm

"regular people" "shut up" "normal life" "uppity"...

wow...

by andy in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 5:25 pm

As I understand it, people would get off of METRO at one of 4 stations, and then mingle with a "vibrant" crowd on the stations platforms and then take risk their life and limb to walk to/from their destinations to/from the stations. How dumb is this? About like dirt.

by jasper in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 5:24 pm

Look, if PRT proponents want to be taken seriously, they need to stop showing us silly proposals that suggest we ought to build elevated rail lines above every street in the city, and start figuring out how to integrate the idea into our existing city infrastructure. Infrastructure is expensive. Elevated infrastructure even more so. Nobody wants to abandon their existing infrastructure to build an entirely new duplicate elevated version. That's stupid, and it's why PRT is stupid.

The reason we all know PRT is pie-in-the-sky nonsense is that PRT proponents are so hung up on the futuristic renderings, they aren't thinking about actual implementation alternatives. For example, a public bike-sharing system that makes use of bike lanes and cycle tracks is a PRT system in almost every definition of the term. That's something lots of people could support, and indeed are supporting. If PRT advocates latched on, they could claim it as proof of concept. Unfortunately, nobody in the PRT world wants to because low-tech bikes on existing surface streets isn't kEwL enough. It IzN't LiEK, tOtaLLy ExTEmE tO thE MaXXX!

Show me a proposal for taxicabs on a series of HOV lanes, and I'll buy that as a serious idea for omething that could theoretically be called "PRT", with potentially practical applications.

Show me a proposal for completely unnecessary elevated lines all over everywhere, and I'm sorry, but it just ain't going to happen. It's a waste of money, and everybody knows it.

by BeyondDC in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 5:23 pm

While I was in college, KDOT hired a group of architecture students to envision and render what one of these systems would look like on an elevated track though out our campus. I reviewed all of the systems, the proposed track structures, and the "claims" by the companies pitching the PRT. I was actually impressed by the system and its capabilities.

If you read the technical aspects of the system, they are not diver-less cars. They are essentially an elevator on a horizontal track. The command and control mechanism works in a similar fashion to the priority elevators installed in the WTC 7 building. The cars are very simple, and if any faults are detected they are directed to "garages" for maintenance. There is even a function to reject cars if someone has an accident in them. They were not widely installed after Morgantown because the available computing technology to manage the system did not exist yet. Some of the concept cars have a built in battery to guide the car to the nearest station in the event of a prolonged outage (or emergency).

We envisioned that the overhead tracks be integrated with utilities, road lighting systems, and other street furniture. I think that if anyone were to design a system for Tysons- installing the system along major thoroughfares would be scale appropriate for the area.

And, I don't see these systems as a replacement of light rail; I firmly believe that they are designed to complement rail and bus lines and offer developers a unique opportunity to spend a relatively small amount of money to link properties to the silver line.

Good discussion!

Joel

by Joel R. in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 5:19 pm

There is lots of information, historical and current, about PRT (also know as PodCars) at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm There are three market-ready systems in the world, several more that are being developed. Links to details for ULTra PRT, Vectus PRT and 2getthere PRT are provided at http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/techtable.htm
The big opportunity (probably lost by now) is to use PRT as a circulator system and a feeder/distributor to METRO, thus enabling METRO to bypass central Tysons saving a ton of money but not affecting performance by much. Everyone should also take a look at a PP presentation by Booz-Allen that shows how PRT could be used at all METRO stations along the DC-Dulles METRO line at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/big/DullesPRT.ppt

by jasper in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 5:16 pm

Cyclists are sort of like the queers. The rest of us regular people are willing to throw them just enough bones to get them to shut up until we can then get on with normal life.

The problem is that both groups get uppity; nothing is ever good enough for them.

by MPC in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 4:48 pm

Mike C:

Stats or GTFO.

by Jewdishoowary Square in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 4:35 pm

Thank you for the lovely tribute.

by Greg Sanders in Transit activist Harry Sanders dies on Mar 12, 2010 4:33 pm

The University Church I go to was built in the early 60's and looks very much like this, and honestly, unless it had a sign outside saying so, no one would know it's even a church, (I mean half the students walking by still don't know until told!) and even those that go inside think it was a classroom building that was gutted and then had an altar stuck in it. Growing up in a church in the round, and then going to here, I gotta tell you I just want to go to a church that looks, "churchy" and one of the first things the students would do if we had the money is tear down the, "gaint concrete box" and make a actual "Church" looking church. Because boxy concrete churches of this style honestly just make me think of old hippies.

by Chris in Church Street church could rise from 1970 ashes on Mar 12, 2010 4:30 pm

I'm with Bianchi.

Tony Kornheiser sounds like a former friend of mine from elementary and middle school.

Its always a joke to TK. Well, look at Wikipedia: TK has a history of making jokes about other people, and that they don't seem to get the job. Funny thing is that TK is VERY sensistive to any criticism.

TK sounds like a former friend of mine. It was fun when you were in elementary school, playing pranks on other kids, especially the kids who were a little bit different. When you get a little older, you realize that they don't get the joke. They suffer. You realize that your friend seems to target people just because they are different. His jokes about people of color, disabled etc, don't sound funny. When you play a harmless joke on him and he sucker punches you, you realize it is he who cannot take a joke.

Thats what TK sounds like to me. A bully.

by SJE in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 4:28 pm

@ Mike

How exactly is it more efficient ? Please list ways how so.

Do the pods cover all parts of the city.

Do they take the shortest route to anywhere.

Do they take the fastest route.

Can this not become backed up if there are millions of people in the city.

What happens if one breaks down and is blocking the roadway.

What happens in a black out if a city is dependent on these

Is there a Ambulance, Firetruck and Police car version of pods otherwise there will be cars in the city.

The version of PRT depicted in Masdar is different than what is shown in depictings for other countries.

These are on the ground and arent built like small onecar lightrail systems. There is no track sense the path is the street.

How is there different than a automated car which drives itself like we have all seen in movies.

The city is being built from the ground up so therefore you are making a decision to move there and accept it, rather than you living somewhere and something is built after the people arrive.

The place may be car free but will it be truck free those pods can not accommodate furniture, equipment, stoves, refrigerators, pods (how will they get to the city).

Unless they plan on building a freight train version or building a freight train line to the city; there are many things missing from this argument.

by kk in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 4:26 pm

I hereby apologize and retract any comments I have made about health, and biking, especially insofar as they were seen as a moral judgement of forms of transportation. The means you use to get from A-B should not be about morality: how you act on the way is a different story.

by SJE in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 4:15 pm

Last time I checked, roads predate the automobile by about 10,000 years.

by eleventh in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 4:07 pm

"I have.. a personal stack in the situation".

by Bianchi in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 4:03 pm

@Nate, I have . I have been nearly killed more then once -who knows if those near misses were intentional or not. I don't. Neither do you. I've been verbally assaulted and verablly threatened numerous times all because I rode my bike somewhere instead of driving my car. Who knows if those threats were meant to "blow off steam" or to well, make me feel like my life was threatened. I don't. Neither do you. It doesn't matter. The effect on me was the same. yeah i get that he was trying to be funny - do you get that I'm saying it's not fucking funny when it's my life he's joking about taking? It can't get more personal.

by Bianchi in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 4:01 pm

After all, if one extends PRT to its logical conclusion, one approaches the medium known as the "car".

The rest of the post is informative, but this line is pure hyperbole. We might as well say that the "logical conclusion" of transit is a world without cars, or the logical conclusion of pedestrian improvements is a world without cars or transit. Obviously, reality is multi-modal, and each mode has an appropriate scale and an inappropriate one.

by Gavin in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 3:49 pm

I am a long time PRT proponent, and I have to say this is one of the most reasonable "anti" PRT commentaries I've seen. You raise many valid concerns -- I don't necessarily agree with them, but at least you've avoided the ridiculous language of most detractors, who try to paint PRT as a fantasy or scam.

Just a few points in response:

- the aesthetics of elevated guideways are a legitimate concern, but it has to be considered in the context of what the guideways would replace. ULTra's guideway is among the bulkiest of PRT designs I've seen, but it's still significantly less obtrusive than even a pedestrian crosswalk. If such a slim system can un-clutter the street (i.e. by reducing automobile traffic and parking requirements) then it may be an acceptable tradeoff. The blight of the automobile is the devil we know - it's amazing how much street-level aesthetic disruption we've come to accept because of the ubiquity of the automobile.

- capacity and comparisons to the automobile - PRT capacity can grow as demand grows, by adding more guideway and stations to a given area. For example, it could start with a 1-mile grid and later evolve to 1/2 mile and 1/4 mile density. The analogy to automobile capacity is not entirely valid for two reasons: (1) PRT guideway is higher capacity than a city street lane, which is bound by traffic signaling. A line of PRT guideway is closer in capacity to a freeway lane than a city street lane. (2) PRT guideway does not take up space on the street.

Automobiles require very large amounts of street-level space for maneuverability; PRT requires little more than a guide post every 50 feet. PRT also benefits from automated control and routing, which further maximizes the space it uses. For these reasons, the assumption that PRT will suffer the same capacity limitations as the automobile is flawed.

But to reiterate, I very much respect the thought you put into this analysis, even if I disagree with your conclusions.

by Mike C in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 3:46 pm

The realities of PRT are difficult to determine because different vendors have differing systems with varying capabilities. Studies we have done show PRT generally carries more people than light rail for less cost. Everyone gets a seat and there is little or no waiting. Trips are non-stop. We are not associated with any PRT vendor and are the only professional consultancy of engineers and planners specializing in PRT. To learn more about PRT visit www.prtconsulting.com.

by Peter Muller in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 3:36 pm

Also, I'm sure child rape victims and people of color would appreciate the comparison to molestation and lynching. Because we cyclists really are subject to an identical degree of victimization and all. Sigh.

Well Nate you missed my point. As I said,

My point is not to equate these with his comments, but to point out that there is a line.

To restate it, my point is that not every joke can be explained away with "it's just a joke." I think child rape victims and people of color would agree.

by David C in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 3:22 pm

The people who bash PRT as fantasy are completely ignorant of reality. PRT is being built in Masdar City as we speak, where it will serve as the sole means of mechanized transport (read: NO CARS). Masdar is an incredibly ambitious project involving some of the most respected engineers and city planners in the world (CH2M Hill, Foster & Partners).

It is also being implemented at Heathrow airport (pilot system to open this year) and is planned for at least half a dozen other cities over the next few years.

Why is PRT being built? Because it is more efficient than any form of transportation (other than walking or cycling). Because it is more convenient, safe, available and accessible than any form of public transit. And because the technology is available and developed TODAY -- at least 3 vendors have safety-approved, ready-to-deploy systems.

Detractors need to pull their heads out of the sand and open their eyes (and minds) to this new and promising technology. It's not a panacea by any means, but it is a viable piece of the transit puzzle.

by Mike C in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 3:20 pm

@everyone:
Yep, people actually do that. And those people actually are criminals. It's sort of like when you are annoyed by somebody and you say "I'd love to punch them in the mouth." But then, you don't actually go punch them in the mouth. Because that would be assault.

Nobody's saying Kornheiser is always funny in these segments. But the point is that people vent in a variety of ways about their annoyance with something, and when you take their comments at face value, you look ridiculous to everybody without a personal stake in the situation.

by Nate in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 3:10 pm

James: If you look, the advantages are not for PRT systems, but for larger, automated bus/streetcar type systems with larger capacities. 4-person cars, meaning 1600 people/hour per station. I like the taxi analogy for showing the scale as well. Although further along, a light rail of the same capacity (1600p/h) isn't really a valid comparison.

"I dont really know about the financial aspects in detail, its not really part of our job as planners. It is technically possible to cover costs with ticket fees. A fee roughly equivalent to the cost of a taxi ride would cover the costs of the system. There is a huge investment cost in a system like this, but after it is prototyped, the costs will come down. The actual cost of PRT is lower than the costs for a light rail of the same capacity."

by m in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 2:58 pm

Excellent point about the effects on street life. Let's hope that Fairfax remains committed to that transformation by adding sidewalks and public spaces.

The cost of PRT is difficult to fathom. There is a reason why the UAE is pioneering such a system. I found this comment from TreeHugger's interview quite revealing: "A fee roughly equivalent to the cost of a taxi ride would cover the costs of the system."

by Matthias in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 2:47 pm

To me it seems like some vast advantages are listed in favor of PRT in this article. I'm personally not for or against it, I don't know enough about it yet. But, I like the following:

1. PRT, even if extended to its 'logical' conclusion, i.e. being a replacement for cars, would be a vast improvement over cars because the humans wouldn't be operating them. Humans are terrible and should absolutely not, on a routine basis, be operating multi-ton vehicles. Humans are the cause of all non-incident traffic jams, they have flocking and mob behaviours that they are unable to subvert without specific attention to the matter.

2. The PRT probably wouldn't be saddled with a craptacular union like WMATA is. DOUBLE BONUS! No human operators of the cars which would drive up the cost of operation and which would affect the frequency, at night for example.

Humans in cars are a problem. Humans operating transit vehicles are a problem.

by james in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 2:36 pm

A bike share system is an obvious last mile solution in Tysons. It would require building some bicycle infrastructure, but much of that could be done by reducing lane widths and creating bike lanes and wide outside lanes. The biggest hurdle is the topography, but a possible solution would be a fleet of electric shared bikes. It would put more people on the street, contributing to a more livable community. It would certainly be much faster to get around than driving during the morning, evening and lunch rush hours.

by Bruce Wright in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 2:35 pm

Matt - great post. Have been enjoying the back and forth on this issue, and you raise some terrific points in this post, particularly because they are so directly related to real estate values in Tyson's (something I am quite interested in). What impact, if any, would you project the varying options would have on home values and rental prices. I'd project that there would not be a serious jump or decrease, but I quality of life considerations always affect RE values. Thoughts?

by Pat in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 4: PRT's obstacles on Mar 12, 2010 2:33 pm

The fundamental problem with Kornheiser's comments is that people actually do drive into bikers and kill them simply because the driver wanted to teach them a lesson, etc. So when Kornheiser pollutes people's minds with the idea, even in jest, that it's ok to do so, in that split second when the decision is made to kill the biker, Kornheiser's nasally voice will pass through their head and say "it'll be funny, do it."

by Reid in Breakfast links: Hate-based policy arguments on Mar 12, 2010 2:30 pm

Having lived in the city for several years without a car, I have to say that shelter from the weather is a HUGE benefit of an underground metro stop. Especially in the winter. Washington winters aren't obscenely cold, but they are windy, and they are cold enough, and sometimes 38 and rainy is even worse than 20 and dry. I'm surprised that more people don't think so. Maybe it's because they're used to one form or the other.

Think about it. I'm walking to the Columbia Heights metro. It's freezing. I'm really booking it, steeling myself against the wind...walking, walking, walking, man I wish snowpants were socially acceptable, if I'm feeling vain and I don't want to mess up my hair then I'm even colder, and then...aaahhh, I can relax, even if I have to wait fifteen minutes for the train. And I'm shielded from seeing all the people drive by in the their temperature-controlled cars.

But if I'm in Silver Spring, I have to wait outside for another very unpleasant fifteen minutes, and it's even worse, because I'm not concentrating on a destination and I'm not creating body heat by walking.

It may seem trivial, or I may be a whimp (and actually, I love public transportation, so this would not faze me) but these repeated inconveniences really affect people's behavior, especially if they're using public transportation because of its relative benefit at the time, and not because they believe in public transportation as a principle.

I wonder if there's some way to make platforms covered à la covered walkways over the freeway in Vienna, maybe with those strong fans you see in grocery store entry-ways that block wind from entering. I'm sure crazier things have been done.

by Thomas in Do elevated rails inhibit sustainable, walkable urban places? on Mar 12, 2010 2:22 pm

Big problem is that there is only one lane in one direction.

Driving, walking & waiting for a bus may all actually take less time than getting on the PRT and riding it all the way around the loop which could be 8 10 or 15 blocks when a person might only want to go 5 blocks or say 4 blocks the opposite way the PRT travels.

by kk in The last mile in Tysons Corner, part 3: PRT? on Mar 12, 2010 2:18 pm

Next 50 comments »