P.R.T.

[tehatemachine]

it's better to just built a rapid transit system.

[BatusaiJack]

pretty shitty animations...

[nocluewhere]

I live here in sunny Brisbane...

It SOUNDS like a good idea BUT here in Brisbane they MUST improve on the current system. Such as here the trains run every 30min where in Perth they run every 15min (population is 50% less there)....

[747K]

There should be a web sit that has the most up to date stuff on the latest on the PRT systems. Most info is not currant nothing is updated. Where is the test track that people can ride and touch to see if it can make it. anything on paper just looks good.

[cmfsharp]

i just googled these 4 phrases:

"innovative transportation"

"ultra prt"

"vectus prt"

"skyweb express prt"

and just like that, you have the most up-to-date info. you should be able to ride the heathrow installation next year.

[747K]

I do not travel allot and I have look at most of the PRT web sites.

[uPostiView]

PRT is a great system. I just don't understand what naysayers like Avidor and pippicat (who may be the same person) have against it. (Unless maybe they are part of the auto industry or light rail manufacturers.)

I support light rail and buses, but they have yet to make a dent in car ridership even in the areas where they are most fully developed. When PRT is finally implemented despite the opposition of naysayers and special interests, it will help extend the reach of transit.

[ColombianSaint83]

it is a good idea and whoever thinks other wise is a fucking retard. The future is coming bitches, lets try and make the best of it.

[Avidor]

PRT has a thirty-year record of failure and controversy. In Minnesota, PRT was promoted by individuals and groups with an anti-transit , pro-highway expansion agenda. I have several videos that document this fact.

[cmfsharp]

Your videos document what everyone already knows: most politicians are corrupt, even those who support transit. Supporting PRT does not equate to being anti-transit or pro-highway. PRT could expand the reach--and thereby the patronage--of existing transit, which currently averages a 5% mode split in the United States.

[uPostiView]

Avidor, you're right that PRT is a nonpartisan, common-sense idea that is able to get everyone on board--even people who traditionally oppose transit. What's the problem with that?

I, for one, have been saddened that countless transit projects (including light rail in MN in the 1970s) couldn't get off the ground because of widespread opposition. Any innovation that can change the mind of the naysayers and get them, together with people of all political stripes, to support transit is GREAT.

[pippicat]

PRT is a fantasy for cornucopians.  It also serves as a stalking horse for the highway industry by undermining support for light rail.

[cmfsharp]

light rail is too expensive unless everyone lives close to the tracks, which in turn drives up rents. PRT would complement light rail and commuter rail systems, unlike park-and-ride lots and slow-poke buses.

[pippicat]

The PRT fantasy/scam has been around for over 30 years.  But you cannot show me an operating system that doesn't have continual breakdowns.  In contrast, I have used heavy and light rail systems in major cities all over the country that work very well.

[cmfsharp]

i don't think that framing the debate as existing transit versus PRT is constructive. even in nyc and chicago, where mode splits reach 30%, roadway congestion pricing faces resistance, despite plenty of autos with 1.2 occupants. transit is still not convenient enough. innovations that can increase ridership without incurring greater subsidization should be tested.

[cmfsharp]

there is only one system in the USA with a PRT-like design and it operates with over 98% availability.

[pippicat]

Name it.

[cmfsharp]

Morgantown.

[pippicat]

That's it?  The system inflicted on the campus of West Virginia University is known by the students as the "Pretty Retarded Train."  What a joke:

roadkillbill (dot) com/PRT-Morgantown.html

[cmfsharp]

I read all the entire page you linked to, and I didn't find any evidence refuting its 98% availability. However, there were a few complaints common to both rail and bus (doesn't run when or where you need it), both of which could be addressed much more efficiently by a system running small vehicles on demand.

[squeakypony]

That looks like a good idea.