The system only runs like that at non peak hours. During the week and under heavy load, the cars only go to specific destinations. The system also bulges several records , including uptime and ritual ridership. More stations are planned and it's been operating for 30 years.

by Evan on Apr 9, 2011 11:25 am • link • report

Dan, you failed to appreciate a few things that are not apparent to the casual observer. 1. Morgantown has now completed over 140 million injury-free passenger miles - regular transit would have injured dozens. 2. It has done so at a level of service far higher than Transit Level of Service A. 3. The $1.50 costs per passenger to run the system are much lower than on conventional transit.

You talk of making use of our existing street infrastructure. This is fine for side roads but, where it really counts, we have no capacity to spare.

Learn more about PRT and sustainable communities at www.prtconsulting.com and www.sustainablecityconsulting.com.

by Peter Muller on Apr 9, 2011 11:50 am • link • report

Typed the first comment from my phone, instead of "bulges several records" it should be "hold several records"; instead of "ritual ridership" it should be "record ridership"

by Evan on Apr 9, 2011 12:05 pm • link • report

The PRT as it is now is only beneficial to the students of WVU and faculty, since they are the only ones allowed to ride the PRT. It only connects the students to the downtown and Evansdale campuses. For regular Morgantown citizens it is worthless because it doesn't really go anywhere useful.

by Jonathan D on Apr 9, 2011 12:21 pm • link • report

I would be surprised if the iconic transit system of a college town didn't have ritual ridership.

by Steven H on Apr 9, 2011 12:23 pm • link • report

You proceed from a misconception. The optimal PRT system is not redundant of the street network, literally or otherwise. PRT would only require as much guideway as necessary to connect stations spaced approx 0.5 miles apart. Would you say a LRT line running alongside a freeway is redundant of the freeway?

by Mr_Grant on Apr 9, 2011 12:34 pm • link • report

the future of PRT is a computer controlled fleet of electric cars brought to you by google. a few things to work out and a few laws to change but I foresee something similar happening before 2020.

by cmc on Apr 9, 2011 12:44 pm • link • report

PRT can only evolve into robocars if accompanied by a policy decision that robocars will also be used for public transit -- which is what PRT is. Without such a policy, the evolution is from automobile to robocar.

I would rather keep transit out of robocars, since I see robocars as simply kicking the congestion equilibrium can down the road, as well as difficult to implement in mixed traffic.

by Mr_Grant on Apr 9, 2011 1:10 pm • link • report

Dan-- good photos but I find it strange that the same people who argue against spending one cent on bicycle infrastructure, transit, or high speed rail, are willing to sink tens of billions of dollars into personal rapid transit and automated highways. These automated highways would do nothing about congestion, nothing about sprawl, would not encourage infill development, and would require a huge amount of spending on new highways.

Here is a column in the WSJ about this from Randall O'Toole of Koch Industries/Cato Inc.

http://wsjclassroom.com/cre/articles/10nov_idea_futurecar.htm

Here is a rebuttal from the CA High Speed Rail blog.

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/05/randall-otooles-gadgetbahn/

by Ben on Apr 9, 2011 1:34 pm • link • report

Dan,

PRT only works in limited circumstances (such as places with very specified origin/destination pairs like on a university campus), but the Morgantown PRT is a shining example of how do it.

To be honest, I find it distressing that you would write an article without doing any research at all (during normal operation, the PRT operates by queueing passengers to specific destinations - until 14 people have tapped in for a specific destination, or until 5 minutes have passed. At peak times, wait times are 30 seconds (amazing headways!). The PRT in Morgantown is really described as group rapid transit (instead of PRT) - it really is carrying, on average, pretty large passengersloads.

Very sloppy article.

by AA on Apr 9, 2011 1:50 pm • link • report

@Ben 1:34pm

That WSJ oped was about robocars, and for the record, O'Toole is against PRT:

http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3283

Let's stay on topic, and away from 'So-and-So seems to be for PRT, therefore everyone for PRT are like So-and-So.'

by Mr_Grant on Apr 9, 2011 1:59 pm • link • report

@AA 1:50 pm

I'd be curious hearing what you see as allowable applications of PRT. How about 3-5 PRT stations feeding a light rail station? That's an example of how government agencies would likely use PRT for the foreseeable future -- i.e., don't be put off by the idealized vision put forward by PRT companies.

by Mr_Grant on Apr 9, 2011 2:05 pm • link • report

Regarding @Ben 1:34 pm as well as comments on the BeyondDC crosspost:

Some critics of PRT have been effective at smearing the concept by associating it only with its right wing supporters -- so effective that the meme is snapped up and innocently spread. Which is what makes memes memes.

In judging the validity of the meme, consider that its originator always omits examples that don't fit. Such as New Urbanist Peter Calthorpe is for PRT, as is the World Wildlife Fund's climate program, a number of recognizable Democratic politicians, big engineering project firms who ought to know from infeasible, and the architect Lord Norman Foster.

You'll probably read that Michele Bachmann is for PRT, based on a small bill she wrote in the Minnesota Senate in the 2003-04 session. But that account will likely omit that hers was only 1 of a number of bills, and that the majority were written by Democrats.

Again, in discussing how transit technology might work, let's skip the politics. PRT doesn't get to decide who is for/against it.

by Mr_Grant on Apr 9, 2011 2:28 pm • link • report

@Mr Grant: Would you say a LRT line running alongside a freeway is redundant of the freeway?

Yes, that's a perfect example of redundancy.

The redundancy might well be justified; that is a different question.

by David desJardins on Apr 9, 2011 4:16 pm • link • report

I agree with AA, 3 minutes of wikipedia time would explain that the system operates in three different modes depending on demand.

The unfortunate part about the system is the hours. Fully automated, and yet it's closed on Sundays? What?

Jonathan, false, anyone can use it.

by JJJJJ on Apr 9, 2011 5:42 pm • link • report

PRT, like "bus rapid transit," is one of those things that people advocate for as alternatives in order to kill mass transit projects and then allow those alternatives to die or become terribly unusable themselves, leaving us with nothing.

The concept sounds great and science-fictiony, though. I'll give them that. Given how old the PRT concept is, however, I would have expected that over the past several decades, someplace else other than Morgantown, WV, perhaps another country, would have other working examples of PRT.

by Tyro on Apr 9, 2011 7:49 pm • link • report

@Tyro: PRT, like "bus rapid transit," is one of those things that people advocate for as alternatives in order to kill mass transit projects and then allow those alternatives to die or become terribly unusable themselves, leaving us with nothing.

Conventional mass transit is one of those things that people advocate for because they don't mind how little they get for their money as long as it's someone else's money and they can blame someone else for not allocating enough of it.

I think we should be spending more on all of the above but I am always astonished at how some halfway decent solution gets adopted and gains its own constituency and interest groups that benefit from it and then becomes entrenched because none of them want to admit that anything better could even in principle be possible, they see that as a sign of weakness in the really important fight with the other side over the shrinking pie.

by David desJardins on Apr 9, 2011 8:55 pm • link • report

What a friend of mine (who's a WVU professor) tweeted about this article:

"Group Rapid Transit is a more accurate labeling, but the writer doesn't recognize MPRT has various operating modes."

by Froggie on Apr 9, 2011 9:02 pm • link • report

The Heathrow PRT system, although relatively simple, is an example of a working system. My understanding form talking with an insider is that the system could now be operating under normal full-scale operating conditions but for some foot dragging by the airport authority.
see ultraprt.com for more information.

by Steve O on Apr 9, 2011 10:06 pm • link • report

@JJJJJ:
While the PRT operates in a fully-automated manner most of the time, you still need staff monitoring the system for when it breaks down. And, being a ~40 year old system, it does break down.

The staff also watches the stations via CCTV to provide security and ensure people aren't doing stupid things that might endanger themselves or the system.

by Bitmapped on Apr 9, 2011 10:18 pm • link • report

@Jonathan D - Anyone who wants to can ride the PRT. WVU faculty and Students get to ride for "free" because their costs are included in tuition and salary. The PRT costs like $.50 per person per ride otherwise. Also, it is free for everyone on Home Football Saturdays.

Also, on Saturdays, the system is on a schedule. During the week, the PRT operates on demand. There are typically 2-5 cars per station, waiting for you to enter the station and press the button for the stop of your choice.

Some images of the PRT at 7:45, 8:15, 9:45 on a Weekday morning would show you a packed-tight-as-sardines station.

This article doesn't seem to have any real information in it.

by Joe M. on Apr 10, 2011 12:14 pm • link • report

It's really unfortunate that the author has missed the point of the Morgantown PRT system almost entirely. A bit of research would've revealed that despite its flaws, the system has been extremely successful.

by Ron on Apr 11, 2011 8:02 am • link • report

@Grant: I'd be curious hearing what you see as allowable applications of PRT. How about 3-5 PRT stations feeding a light rail station? That's an example of how government agencies would likely use PRT for the foreseeable future

Yeah - places with several clearly defined origin and destination pairs (airports are a great example, like the London Heathrow PRT). Universities are another. But these ideas of this lightweight PRT system that is goes everywhere and has stops everywhere is silly. All the negatives of an automobile (limited capacity, question of vehicle storage, poor use of trackway capacity) and all the limitations of transit. (shared public space, a travel time that is almost certainly longer than point to point travel, etc)

FYI, the Morgantown PRT was actually a UMTA project (precursor to FTA), that was sponsored by Senator Byrd from WV. (actually, it started as a study when UMTA was still part of HUD)

by AA on Apr 11, 2011 9:51 am • link • report

@AA

I have followed the PRT concept for 21 years now, so I am familiar with the list of perceived drawbacks you cite, as well as the history of the Morgantown system.

It would be so nice if PRT were granted the same room for imperfection as other technology, so the "Yeah, Buts" don't become an excuse to not do any R&D at all.

You object to small capacity of PRT vehicles on the one hand, and shared space of transit on the other hand. Well that pretty much rules out vehicles of all sizes. That each PRT vehicle would be reused throughout the day -- aggregate high capacity -- is a good compromise between automobiles that sit idle most of the time, and buses & trains with low off-peak occupancy rates.

PRT vehicle storage would be in-service -- waiting at stations (& probably a number of holding sidings) for riders. If the fleet must be larger than that because it is well-patronized, at offpeak times the empties can be kept in a trolley-barn type of facility, where controllers and maintenance staff would work.

I'm somewhat puzzled by your objection on trackway capacity, since PRT guideway is analogous to an elevator shaft, demand determines how busy it is. Compare this to light rail trackway, where scheduled headways can be 5, 10, 15 minutes and more, and hours if service stops late at night. (Sidebar - Is your concern based on perceived high infrastructure cost? Small vehicle size & weight translates to smaller and lower cost guideway compared to trains, esp. since true PRT guideway has no moving parts. Morgantown is an exception due to poor project coordination by UMTA; guideway construction started before the vehicles were designed, so the builder made the guideway HUGE, in case the vehicles were larger.)

@travel time that is almost certainly longer than point to point travel: you understand that true PRT is on-demand, with no intervening stops?

A big source of controversy between PRT supporters and doubters is that both sides have tended to argue about the idealized, half-mile station grid vision for PRT. But I don't think that is how PRT would be implemented, especially where urban rail already exists.

Our goal should be cities where you can get around without having to own a car. PRT will just be an additional tool available to transit planners to get to that goal, I fail to see why anyone would object to having more tools. We won't get to the goal by limiting ourselves to train tech, the cost would mean a century to achieve citywide networks in the US, and no country can maintain policy momentum for that long.

by Mr_Grant on Apr 11, 2011 12:24 pm • link • report