Dec 3 2012: Thank you very much. I am not involved in it any more. Too difficult. But may people are continuing that. There are many ways to do it but very few to do it right. Raytheon tried to implement it in Cincinnati many years ago, when I was still in college, but they assigned to the project fringe engineers that killed the concept by making it Group instead of Personal (GRP instead of PRT). There is a weak attempt doing it wrongly now in Heathrow Airport, In Tel Aviv, it seems they are about to implement a version of this. This one maybe successful.
This is a good website - watch the video http://www.taxi2000.com/images/movies/echo.swf
Dec 3 2012: In my initial text and subsequent answers there are already many answers for your last comments. For instance you continue to say that " that it would have to compete against existing systems of mass transportation with only a small benefit of time savings." I have showed you many times that it is not so. Maybe I didn't prove it yet, but some serious engineers have conducted studies that show that it does save a lot of time. There is no point in continuing to counter argue if this happens.
You are right when say that others systems exist. To this I have two answers: First, they don't exists everywhere. There are still densely populated areas with poor transit. The investment on this idea doesn't have to be all or nothing. Why not make a small pilot to test it? This pilot could be a "feeder" to other systems (rail or subway). The systems could work together. If this idea is indeed better, it will win by natural selection.
The automated car system that you are suggesting is a good idea. But this one is a system that separates pedestrians from the traffic, so the automated system doesn't have to worry about that. Yes, it is rail based but it is a special rail based.
Dec 2 2012: First, in one aspect you are absolutely right. We did economical studies that show that the denser the population, the higher the return. In another aspect, when you mention that other systems have similar performance, I need to correct that. First, with this system you don't need to change trains or bus routes etc... Secondly, it takes you from origin to destination nonstop. In a subway system most of the time you spend decelerating, accelerating and stopping. This usually triple the travel time. Add to that, change of trains and longer walks between stations and you get a huge difference. Economically, as I mentioned before, it costs 1/10 of subway to install and 1/4 to operate. There are only 2 systems in the world that do not require subsidies - Hong Kong and Tokyo. All other systems are subsidized by government. It is especially costly during off peak hours where they reduce the frequency, this lowering demand even further. PRT operates on demand 24/7. It runs only when you need it from any station to any other station nonstop. Its cheaper by orders of magnitude and faster by orders of magnitude as well as much safer. This system doesn't need government money. It actually can make money having the potential to attract private equity. Since it operates on demand one can program a ticket (a bar coded plastic card) to run only to a couple or more destinations (your choice) and give tickets to younger kids, The charging system could be similar to EZ pass with unbelievable possibilities. Because of the small size of vehicles, stations could be inside buildings, and malls. The guideways cross section is only 3' X 3' with posts 60' apart and could and be easily attached to existing bridges. You really have to go into it to understand the amazing potential.
BTW - the average speed of a car in Manhattan during daytime is 3 MPH. The PRT system is 35 MPH.
Dec 2 2012: That's correct. This system would be an addition and not a replacement, although I predict that if something like this is installed, the vast majority will use it especially due to its scalability and the ability to easily and affordable increase the number of miles and number of stations.
Dec 2 2012: You are almost right. In the US, less than 1% of trips are made with public transit. In New York city the number is 9%. Why this difference? In Atlanta they decided to subsidize more their transit and ridership hardly changed. Why? The reason is the cost of time. The richer the society, the higher is the cost of time. The main factor contributing to you choice of transportation system is the cost of your time. The richer you are, the more likely you will chose the fastest method independent of the actual physical out of pocket cost, unless heavy penalties are incurred in the forms of tolls, like they did recently in London for the center of city. As we saw in Bill Ford's talk we are heading towards a world where in urban areas we will be stuck in traffic longer and longer. So if you are a commuter and I give you a choice of spending 20 minutes commuting in transit versus 90 minutes with your car and you have to do it everyday. Which one would you chose? Especially if you have to do it everyday?
In regards to freedom - a properly installed PRT system would give you more, not less freedom. As I mentioned, it operates on demand and it goes from any station to any other station nonstop. You don't need to find parking space and you could hop on a vehicle stationed in any station. New stations are easy and cheap to install. The distance between stations is small because adding stations doesn't slow the system, but increases exponentially its usability. You don't need to walk farther to a station than to your parking space in Manhattan.
So the reason that in Manhattan transit ridership is much higher is that in many cases it takes longer to use your car than the transit. The price of time is the main factor. So you don't really need to convince people in marketing campaigns to use the system, It will happen naturally.
May 25 2012: The payback is long only because you consider as cost of energy the of extraction without taking into account the damage in the future. $3 or $ 4 is not the real cost. It is much higher.
Cost of air pollution alone when counting asthma cases and other respiratory diseases can increase it dramatically. Add to that storms that can cost $5 bil a piece. These can become more frequent now (in fact they already are). Add to that crop losses due to droughts and flooding as well losses of property and lives, then you will see the payback time reduced to less than 3 years.
TEDCred score: +0.10 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: We should not try to improve the car. We should think of a new system of mobility. This could come in a form of smart transit.
This is a good website - watch the video http://www.taxi2000.com/images/movies/echo.swf
A reply on Conversation: We should not try to improve the car. We should think of a new system of mobility. This could come in a form of smart transit.
You are right when say that others systems exist. To this I have two answers: First, they don't exists everywhere. There are still densely populated areas with poor transit. The investment on this idea doesn't have to be all or nothing. Why not make a small pilot to test it? This pilot could be a "feeder" to other systems (rail or subway). The systems could work together. If this idea is indeed better, it will win by natural selection.
The automated car system that you are suggesting is a good idea. But this one is a system that separates pedestrians from the traffic, so the automated system doesn't have to worry about that. Yes, it is rail based but it is a special rail based.
A reply on Conversation: We should not try to improve the car. We should think of a new system of mobility. This could come in a form of smart transit.
BTW - the average speed of a car in Manhattan during daytime is 3 MPH. The PRT system is 35 MPH.
A reply on Conversation: We should not try to improve the car. We should think of a new system of mobility. This could come in a form of smart transit.
A reply on Conversation: We should not try to improve the car. We should think of a new system of mobility. This could come in a form of smart transit.
In regards to freedom - a properly installed PRT system would give you more, not less freedom. As I mentioned, it operates on demand and it goes from any station to any other station nonstop. You don't need to find parking space and you could hop on a vehicle stationed in any station. New stations are easy and cheap to install. The distance between stations is small because adding stations doesn't slow the system, but increases exponentially its usability. You don't need to walk farther to a station than to your parking space in Manhattan.
So the reason that in Manhattan transit ridership is much higher is that in many cases it takes longer to use your car than the transit. The price of time is the main factor. So you don't really need to convince people in marketing campaigns to use the system, It will happen naturally.
A reply on Talk: Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero!
Cost of air pollution alone when counting asthma cases and other respiratory diseases can increase it dramatically. Add to that storms that can cost $5 bil a piece. These can become more frequent now (in fact they already are). Add to that crop losses due to droughts and flooding as well losses of property and lives, then you will see the payback time reduced to less than 3 years.