Dang it, Tom, you got me started all over again. For starters, the vehicles are inherently funny-looking; they look to be straight out of the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper." And that test track at Cardiff resembles nothing so much as a Lionel layout on my living room floor when I was a kid. The whole concept just seems preposterous. Leave it to the Limeys, I guess. :lol:
AlohaIt is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.
No sh*t. But un-affordability has never stopped a huge number of other boondoggles. Think of New York's solution to its traffic problems, and think of how the Big Digs budget could have been better spent removing cars from the road rather than making room for them in Boston, too. I will be really really really sad if this thing ever actually comes to being. But I won't be surprised. Like Hybrid powertrains, ethanol fuel additives, all-electric cars like the EV1, and hybrid sport utilities, its a boondoggle. It seemed like a good idea at first conception, and they have kept on all of them long after they have been demonstrated to be useless for their purpose. But the People keep screaming, "DO SOMETHING!!!!!". So they do something. So it looks like they are doing something.It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.
What about elderly who aren't up for the hike? What about people trying to move cargo?1) Built by New Balance, Reebock, Nike, and others- SNEAKERS.
Are people in this country too lazy to walk a maximum of 2 and a half blocks? Its the kind of old school semi-innovation that created dot-matrix printers. We needed to have more flexibility in character creation, but continued to operate on the theory that mechanical text output required percussion on solid-state ink. We need more efficient tranportation, but we need door-to-door service and total control over mobility. Get out of the taxi, and fricken walk. We wouldn't be such an overweight country if people walked. Sheesh.
Can you provide a link or other such info on these other "old ideas"?It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.
For every rule there are exceptions, naturally. But most people who are elderly would be more fit to walk had they been walking considerably their entire life. Many people who can't walk notable distances can't do so largely or partially because their muscle strength, cardiovascular endurance, and will power are not up to it, as a result of a very limited degree of exercise. My mother worked at a school not a quarter mile from our house, which is in the suburbs. She would drive to work, get out of her car, and walk another 100 feet or less to her office, sit down, and not get up much for the rest of the day. Over the years she was at this job, she gained a lot of weight, and walking a mile on the treadmill is now difficult.What about elderly who aren't up for the hike? What about people trying to move cargo?
gary
www.PRTProject.com
You are taking the idea of a car, placing it on tracks, and calling it revolutionary. Its the same thinig, except computer controlled. Its not more efficient, or useful.Can you provide a link or other such info on these other "old ideas"?It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.
gary
www.prtproject.com
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that people need more exercise. This system doesn't prevent that. But there are still plenty of additional advantages of door-to-door transportation. It addresses incliment weather. In some places it's safer. If your mother lived in east LA, how far do you want her walking to reach public transportation? And since my system REPLACES the automobile, the pathways for door-to-door service already exist, so why not?For every rule there are exceptions, naturally. But most people who are elderly would be more fit to walk had they been walking considerably their entire life. Many people who can't walk notable distances can't do so largely or partially because their muscle strength, cardiovascular endurance, and will power are not up to it, as a result of a very limited degree of exercise. My mother worked at a school not a quarter mile from our house, which is in the suburbs. She would drive to work, get out of her car, and walk another 100 feet or less to her office, sit down, and not get up much for the rest of the day. Over the years she was at this job, she gained a lot of weight, and walking a mile on the treadmill is now difficult.What about elderly who aren't up for the hike? What about people trying to move cargo?
gary
www.PRTProject.com
I used to run marathons, my greatest achievement being finishing the New York marathon about 5 years ago. I didn't do well place-wise, but damnit, I finished. Sometimes in the City I don't take the subway and walk 5 or more miles to where I am going. I enjoy it, its easy, and its good for me. I think that people who walked everywhere would have a body that, due to the needs placed on it, would avoid damaging its ability to walk in favour of things less needed.
Naturally there are exceptions to this rule. There are really old people, people with disabilities, and other people who for whatever reasons can't walk more than a few feet. And yes, they need to have some kind of transportation between places. Given a world where people walk the last few blocks to their destination, this would be a very small percentage, say 15%, and I'm being generous. These people could use vans. Standard, internal combustion powered vans. Or even, since they would generally be used between transportation hubs in cities and destinations within them, they could even be small electrical powered vehicles. But there is no need for them to be something as complicated or expensive as the PRT you discuss. A hyper golf cart, like the already extant GEM Electric City Car would be fine.
So you propose we keep using diesel to haul freight? The goal is to get away from fossil fuels (biofuels are a fraud).Transporting goods is a whole different thing entirely. But imagine the roads if 85% of private passenger vehicle traffic was removed from them. They'd be empty. And there is no reason why the clean, and very efficient, 18-wheeler diesel trucks, that currently do the job of hauling cargo should not continue hauling cargo from freight-rail and freight-air hubs to destinations within cities. Obviously, smaller and less powerful vehicles could haul smaller amounts of cargo.
First of all, I don't understand what system you're proposing (beyond tennis shoes), so it's hard for me to compare the two.The system I describe would be more efficient than what you describe. What you describe, by its very nature, would not be substantially more efficient than a person driving a standard road electric car.
So let me get this straight...you believe that a gas (or diesel) engine is more energy efficient than an electric engine? And even if you believe this, do you also believe that generating these combustible fuels is comparable to generating electricity with respect to environmental an political considerations? That's certainly a new one on me.And research indicates that these vehicles are less efficient than their gas counterparts in areas where electricity is not generated using nuclear fission or renewable energy. They CAN'T be. Any transmission of energy will result in a loss of it. It is less efficient to generate electricity using a gas motor, connect it to an electric motor, and use that electric motor to move something, then to use the gas motor directly. Hybrids gain efficiency by reclaiming energy using regenerative braking, as well as shutting off the motor when stopped. Were these features not implemented in them, they would be less efficient than an all-gas powered vehicle.
Electric technology benefits not from how efficient it is, but in the kind of energy an electric motor produces. It produces its force primarily in the form of torque, rather than horsepower. A 30hp electric engine generates something like 160 lb-ft of torque, and it generates at every RPM setting above zero up to its redline. In comparison, a gas motor is a lot less torque efficient. A appocryphal example would be Hondas original S2000 motor, a 2-litre DOHC 4-cylinder marvel of technology. It generates an incredible 240 horsepower from those two litres, giving it the highest naturally aspirated specific power output of any engine built. It has a redline just under 9000 rpm. It generates a measly 153 lb-ft, and only when turning at about 7500 rpm. It is a gutless motor at its lower RPMs.
Its ok in a light roaster like the Honda S2000. But for a vehicle weighing as much as a large electric train does, torque is what matters. Torque is why diesel-powered locomotives use electric engines to transmit power. Because of the size of, say, an Amtrak Reigonal, electricity can power it along more efficiently than diesel does.
Stringing cars together? I guess I still don't understand what you're proposing...By striniging cars together, you allow power to be used more efficiently. A Ford E350 diesel has very little performance variation carrying 1 passenger, or 15 passengers. Carrying one passenger, it gets about 10 passenger miles for every gallon. Carrying 15, it gets close to 150 passenger miles per gallon. A train gets very high passenger miles per gallon because the power is being consolidated, and thus, more efficiently used.
The same thing?! Nonsense. There are MANY reasons that this system would be much more efficient, foremost because it IS computer controlled. Do you really believe that you're as efficient in your driving as a computer? That you know exactly how much brake to apply? That you are aware of obstacles or slowdowns just around the corner that you cannot yet see? Or that you've never been held up by rubberneckers? Or that you NEVER get tired behind the wheel? Or that you can see in the darkness as well as a system using infrared imaging? You may disagree with my concept, but I cannot imagine anyone not seeing the advantages of applying automation to transportation.You are taking the idea of a car, placing it on tracks, and calling it revolutionary. Its the same thinig, except computer controlled. Its not more efficient, or useful.Can you provide a link or other such info on these other "old ideas"?It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.
gary
www.prtproject.com
Because there is no advantage to tracking vehicles, and it costs money. A car is a car, whether on a track or on its own. It uses the same amount of resources whether it is on rails, or not. Waste. Of. Money.Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that people need more exercise. This system doesn't prevent that. But there are still plenty of additional advantages of door-to-door transportation. It addresses incliment weather. In some places it's safer. If your mother lived in east LA, how far do you want her walking to reach public transportation? And since my system REPLACES the automobile, the pathways for door-to-door service already exist, so why not?
Yes. It is very efficient. A fossil-fuel free world is a pipe dream in our life times. Greatly reducing its usage is, on the other hand realistic. Second, I own two cars. Both are Mercedes-Benzes, and both run on diesel. One of those cars has a WVO conversion, and I'd like you to explain to me how the fuel I use to get around is a "fraud". Bio-fuels would work pretty damned well if we reduce our consumption to the level at which 50% or more of our diesel fuel could be based upon our bio-waste, such as used cooking oil.So you propose we keep using diesel to haul freight? The goal is to get away from fossil fuels (biofuels are a fraud).
A hub-and-spoke national, state, city, and local mass transportation network. Using planes for long distances, high-speed trains for medium and short distances, and mass-rapid-transit within cities combined with the apparent crime of trying to walk the rest of the way.First of all, I don't understand what system you're proposing (beyond tennis shoes), so it's hard for me to compare the two.
Ask anyone who understands physics. The electricity doesn't just appear. Transmission of any energy in our planet results in a less than 100% efficient transmission of that energy. If I use a 100bhp engine to generate electricity, that electricity can not power a 100bhp electric motor. It would power a less powerful motor. It has to. There is a degree of power lost by its transmission. Period. A diesel engine hooked up to a massively large transportation mechanism, such as a 10 car train, is more efficient than 30 dozen small electrical jokes in their place. Sorry, but its simply a fact. A train carrying 200 passengers weighs less, and is more efficient, than 100 personal vehicles transporting two people, or even 40 personal vehicles transporting 5 people.So let me get this straight...you believe that a gas (or diesel) engine is more energy efficient than an electric engine? And even if you believe this, do you also believe that generating these combustible fuels is comparable to generating electricity with respect to environmental an political considerations? That's certainly a new one on me.
Its a device known as a "train". A "train" is any transportation device that has multiple articulated parts. In Austrailia, they have "road trains", 4 or 5 trailers being pulled by a powerful Peterbilt.Stringing cars together? I guess I still don't understand what you're proposing...
Computer controlled and efficiency are not the same thing. I may or may not be more efficient in my driving as a computer. I don't care, I prefer driving myself. I drive a 14 year old car because it doesn't have a computer, the last model sold in the US that didn't have one. But thats besides the point. I am fully aware of obstacles as I see them, and I tend to think I am skilled enough to avoid them. I hold the local SCCA rally title, if you really care to know. But that is all besides the point.The same thing?! Nonsense. There are MANY reasons that this system would be much more efficient, foremost because it IS computer controlled. Do you really believe that you're as efficient in your driving as a computer? That you know exactly how much brake to apply? That you are aware of obstacles or slowdowns just around the corner that you cannot yet see? Or that you've never been held up by rubberneckers? Or that you NEVER get tired behind the wheel? Or that you can see in the darkness as well as a system using infrared imaging? You may disagree with my concept, but I cannot imagine anyone not seeing the advantages of applying automation to transportation.
And btw, you did NOT give any examples of how this is an "old" idea. Still waiting on that one.
gary
www.PRTProject.com
Judging from your comments, you're missing one very key aspect of the proposal. You don't own the vehicles. They are a common utilty, just like a bus or subway. So there are no massive parking lots full of PRT vehicles. Gaining back acerage currently devoted to parking lots is actually one of the concept's advantages. Instead you only need enough disembarking positions to cover the people coming and going. To further clarify, the concept only requires enough vehicles to cover peak usage.Perhaps gary should apply his undoubted expertise to reviving the AeroCar or autogyros.
He says there are "MANY reasons that this system would be much more efficient, foremost because it IS computer controlled." I for one would like to see those many reasons enumerated here in the forum, sans promotional website.
Foremost, to use gary's term, I would like to know where he expects funding for his idea to come from. Hindmost, the electricity still has to be generated somewhere. Is gary proposing a massive building program of coal-fired powerplants to energize his PRTProject? Nuclear power? Windmills? Bacteria that generate electricity? Our nation is strapped for power as it is.
The photo of little vehicles on little tracks in front of a Home Depot on the PRTProject website only serves to emphasize how ludicrous the concept is. Picture every parking lot turned into a railyard. And that concept photo showed the vehicles parked right by the door of the store. What if your computerized Jetsonsmobile parked further away? You'd have to pick your way over a maze of tracks and switches to get to the store. I fail to see how such an arrangement would be of help to the elderly, disabled, or people trying to move cargo. Maybe gary has a plan for levitational skyways to get people and their goods between stores and vehicles. If not that, grade crossing signals at every parking space. A technological marvel!
There may well be new transit technologies in our future, but PRT isn't one of them.
Finally, since gary brought it up, my mother grew up in East L.A., and somehow managed to survive. I've seen the house she grew up in, and it was 1/2 block to catch an L.A. Railway streetcar; a workable transit system, along with the Pacific Electric, that was killed by clowns pushing junk like PRT. Back then they went by the names of General Motors, Firestone, et al.
One minor point...there's an artist in Denmark who's in the process of recreating all the graphic for the website. That's why some of the graphics are so poor. I'm not much of an artist.The photo of little vehicles on little tracks in front of a Home Depot on the PRTProject website only serves to emphasize how ludicrous the concept is.
Wrong. Steel wheels on rails require less energy to move the same weight as rubber tires on asphalt. Do you really think that it's an amazing coincidence of physics that they are equal?It uses the same amount of resources whether it is on rails, or not. Waste. Of. Money.
There are a few billion people in China who want to purchase cars. Do you think the system will work if they each own two Mercedes-Benzes as well? As for biofuels, they take more energy to produce than they provide. For the most part total scientific fraud. I can point you to many websites that detail this if you like. The only people promote biofuels are the politicians in Iowa trying to please the farmers.A fossil-fuel free world is a pipe dream in our life times. Greatly reducing its usage is, on the other hand realistic. Second, I own two cars. Both are Mercedes-Benzes, and both run on diesel. One of those cars has a WVO conversion, and I'd like you to explain to me how the fuel I use to get around is a "fraud".
I'm curious...do you actually use public transportation? Or are you in the majority who find it impractical for their circumstances?A hub-and-spoke national, state, city, and local mass transportation network. Using planes for long distances, high-speed trains for medium and short distances, and mass-rapid-transit within cities combined with the apparent crime of trying to walk the rest of the way.
I don't need a lesson in physics from you. Obviously energy is lost WHENEVER it is transmitted. This is NOT an argument for diesel and against electrical engines.Ask anyone who understands physics. ...snipe...
Thanks for the clarification. Next time just call it a "train".Its a device known as a "train".
I'm very impressed that your driving skills are a match for an automated system. I also don't believe you. And I doubt if anyone else does either. This is where your argument really gets silly.Computer controlled and efficiency are not the same thing. I may or may not be more efficient in my driving as a computer.
No doubt there were people who didn't want to give up the horse & buggy in favor of the automobile. I understand.I don't care, I prefer driving myself. I drive a 14 year old car because it doesn't have a computer, the last model sold in the US that didn't have one.
Again, arguing that your reaction times are superior to a computer is just plain silly. Since computers get faster every year, presumably you are as well? Or are you so far ahead that they will never catch up? Just curious.I am fully aware of obstacles as I see them, and I tend to think I am skilled enough to avoid them. I hold the local SCCA rally title, if you really care to know. But that is all besides the point.
Sorry, we already tried that. And nobody is using them.All of these things work a LOT better if you consolidate all that structure into one long vehicle called a train.
That is a moot point. Most of the resources the average motor vehicle takes up are taken up during its production.Wrong. Steel wheels on rails require less energy to move the same weight as rubber tires on asphalt. Do you really think that it's an amazing coincidence of physics that they are equal?
I can point you to a website that labels Mike Huckabee as the next Savior of humanity. To me, he is just a loudmouthed imbecile. My newer car is 14 years old, and the older turns 30 this year. I think you'll find a large number of cars fitting these general specifications employed throughout the third world. "Bio-fuels" constitute any fuel produced from biological matter. Corn oil is used extensively in cooking. It costs little money to collect used cooking oil, and use it to supplement the fuel currently used. Processing biomass strictly for powering cars is stupid, re-using that produced for other uses to power cars once its original purpose has been served is a different story entirely. It is not scientific fraud by any means. I am not a politician, nor do I live in Iowa. I promote bio-fuels as a key component in the solution to this country's energy problems, its not the be-all end-all, but its part of it.There are a few billion people in China who want to purchase cars. Do you think the system will work if they each own two Mercedes-Benzes as well? As for biofuels, they take more energy to produce than they provide. For the most part total scientific fraud. I can point you to many websites that detail this if you like. The only people promote biofuels are the politicians in Iowa trying to please the farmers.
You are oblivious. Look up at the header of this website. "Amtraktrains.com" "Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum". Do I use public transit? I dunno, I guess I could be against mass transit, being here and all. Right. Of course I use public transit! Its the only sensible way to get into New York City. Public transport is they key to future transportation. I use the car to get places I have no alternative to.I'm curious...do you actually use public transportation? Or are you in the majority who find it impractical for their circumstances?
Perhaps, but that doesn't have anything to do with this. This is not an argument of diesel vs. electric, this is an argument of direct vs. indirect transmission except in cases of a need for high-torque. The vehicles you describe are not vehicles requiring high torque.I don't need a lesson in physics from you. Obviously energy is lost WHENEVER it is transmitted. This is NOT an argument for diesel and against electrical engines.
If you aren't the only one on this forum who didn't know that I was talking about a train, my mouth will open to the floor out of sheer astonishment.Thanks for the clarification. Next time just call it a "train".I'm very impressed that your driving skills are a match for an automated system. I also don't believe you. And I doubt if anyone else does either. This is where your argument really gets silly.
Go to your local Ariel Atom or Caterham dealer and go for a test drive. Then take down your website. In any case, a computer is an additional complication. Additional complications break. Replacing a vehicle because its computer died and thus repairing it is uneconomical is bad for the environment. We should drive our cars for 20 to 30 years. That would be a useful conservation of resources.No doubt there were people who didn't want to give up the horse & buggy in favor of the automobile. I understand.Again, arguing that your reaction times are superior to a computer is just plain silly. Since computers get faster every year, presumably you are as well? Or are you so far ahead that they will never catch up? Just curious.
Where are you operating this theory from? Take the NY metro area. Over a million people arrive in New York City by train every day. Over five million people use its subways every day. And of the top ten cities in this country, New York has the least traffic problems because its public transit is extensive, comprehensive, and effective. Unlike most other systems. If our cities had the kind of commuter rail that serves New York, and the extensive, expedient, and economical rapid transit that serves its streets, more people would use them.Sorry, we already tried that. And nobody is using them.
Ok, its a automobile with a tiny amount of window dressing. Its the same old idea because it is the same old idea. But since you want sources, here's one: Source. It is a waste of resources to use the kind of vehicle you describe to transport a small number of people, or one single person. It makes more sense to densely pack them the way they do in the NY subways. The number of passenger miles per gallon of fossil fuel for the New York subway must be damned impressive.It's not a standard automobile. Tracks are not the same as asphalt. Not sure how anyone would judge those as the same. So when I asked you earlier to site your references of this being an "old" idea, your answer is that you really had none.
Ah, but with the computers you so highly vaunt, one must assume they can correct for such things!Would you rather stand five feet from a PRT vehicle on rails traveling at 40mph? Or one of those Hondas using the automated system on an asphalt road? (hint: think blowouts and potholes)
WhoozOn1st999, what you see on my website is all I have. This is not my occupation. Nor do I have funding for research. I never claimed otherwise. I'm simply using my personal engineering common sense to explore alternatives to our transportation / energy problems.Yeah, it's easy to poke holes in the porous positions of GML.
But we have yet to see a list of concrete reasons why a PRT is superior. Talk is cheap. Where are the engineering studies? If they exist, give us links to them. Where are the environmental impact studies? Where are the funding proposals, or at least ideas along those lines? What routes, in what cities, would best be served by PRT? Inquiring minds want to know.
The common utility argument is laughable. As with a regular transit system there would be periods of heavy and light usage. In times of light utilization you have to put the vehicles somewhere, or do you just leave them lying around at wherever until somebody wants to ride one? So much for not needing parking lots. Talk of only needing "disembarking positions" effectively nullifies the whole idea. What gary calls disembarking positions are known to most of us as "stations." What a revolutionary concept!
Gary, please give us positive chapter and verse on why PRT is good, instead of just trying to refute the case against it.
I think whoever did the graphics got it exactly right.
And if any other country wants to forge ahead in the PRT direction, I say let 'em go for it. Then we can see how it doesn't work and avoid a similar mistake.
For the most part, you're correct. Some vehicles would be routed to service centers, some would park where usage is predicted next. Since I leave for work at 6:45am every morning, the system would "learn" my behavior and have a vehicle waiting for me. It stands to reason that you need many less total parking spots if you have many less total vehicles in the system.In times of light utilization you have to put the vehicles somewhere, or do you just leave them lying around at wherever until somebody wants to ride one?
To me a station is a common assembly point. I would not consider your home a "station". At the local mall a "taxi line" would form in anticipation of passengers. This is as close as it gets to a station in the PRT system.What gary calls disembarking positions are known to most of us as "stations."
First, any city or town is vulnerable to terrorism and its effects. Small is no guarantee that terrorists won't strike; may I remind you of Lockerbie Scotland?As for which cities, I would say any large urban areas. As with all public transportation concepts, it works less well in urban areas. I appreciate that you and GML are proponents of trains, but you must admit that they can only service a small fraction of commuters since they require the coincidence of stations near both your home and work. I realize they work better for very vertical places like NY, but I would rather NOT see the rest of the world looking like NY. I prefer my skylines. I prefer to live in areas less vulnerable to terrorism. And I prefer less people than that. Just for reference I live in San Jose, just south of San Francisco. Where I live public transportation is a complete failure. The buses drive around empty most of the time and carry only a very small fraction of our commuters. The lightrail is inconvenient to everyone I know. I take bart occasionally, but I have to drive 30 miles just to reach a station first. So clearly San Jose and NY are at opposite ends of the public transportation success scale. And rather than turn San Jose into another NY, I would prefer some other solution to the transportation problem.
Hi Alan,First, any city or town is vulnerable to terrorism and its effects. Small is no guarantee that terrorists won't strike; may I remind you of Lockerbie Scotland?As for which cities, I would say any large urban areas. As with all public transportation concepts, it works less well in urban areas. I appreciate that you and GML are proponents of trains, but you must admit that they can only service a small fraction of commuters since they require the coincidence of stations near both your home and work. I realize they work better for very vertical places like NY, but I would rather NOT see the rest of the world looking like NY. I prefer my skylines. I prefer to live in areas less vulnerable to terrorism. And I prefer less people than that. Just for reference I live in San Jose, just south of San Francisco. Where I live public transportation is a complete failure. The buses drive around empty most of the time and carry only a very small fraction of our commuters. The lightrail is inconvenient to everyone I know. I take bart occasionally, but I have to drive 30 miles just to reach a station first. So clearly San Jose and NY are at opposite ends of the public transportation success scale. And rather than turn San Jose into another NY, I would prefer some other solution to the transportation problem.
Second, while I will admit that NYC is helped by being "vertical" as you call it, that isn't the only reason that our transportation system works here. It's simply because we actually have enough tracks still running trains to really make a difference. San Jose which either had no tracks or pulled out most of its tracks years ago, is now having to basically start all over, with the current light rail system being the first baby step. There are plans for a bigger system, which if realized would bring greater benefit to the city.
That said, while it may be incovienent to you and people that you know, some 10.3 million people rode that light rail system last year, for an average of almost 33,000 people every weekday.
As for those empty buses, they moved 31.6 million people last year for an average of 102,000 every weekday.
And next time you need to get to BART, consider taking Caltrain to reach BART, at least until BART reaches San Jose and it is coming. An average of 2,000 people board a Caltrain train in San Jose each weekday.
The above isn't intended to knock your idea or to support it, I'm just pointing out a few facts for you. I'm not sure if your idea is the future or not, but one thing that I do know is that this country was founded on ideas and made into the world leader it is today because of ideas. So I applaud you for that. Where we as a country go next though is far from clear and it will eventually go to the person with hopefull the best idea and the numbers to support it.
Gary,Points taken. I concede that my evidence for declaring SJ's public transportation system a failure is circumstantial, based on my own experiences and the many empty buses that have cut me off over the years, going all the way back to "dial-a-ride", a hairbrained scheme to send a full sized bus door to door. Given your knowledge of statistics, what percent of the people in SJ use public transportation? While again surcumstantial, I don't know a single person.
While I won't deny that taking out a train would result in a higher casualty rate by comparison to a PRT, two things occur to me. First, odds are that you won't kill everyone on the train, unlike a plane. Even the bombings in Spain did not result in the deaths of hundreds and they bombed several trains at once.BTW, small vehicles are yet another advantage of the system I propose over subways or trains. If you take out a high speed train, you kill hundreds. If you take out a PRT vehicle, you take out very few people. Unfortunately these are factors we need to consider when designing a transportation system. I dread the day when someone takes out a bullet train.
Enter your email address to join: