Computer illustration of author's proposed elevated system using technology similar to ski slope gondolas. The author contends his approach is cheaper and faster to implement. Illustration courtesy of Michal Golinski.
A proposal for a cost-effective Personal Rapid Transport system.
Open Access Article Originally Published: May 10, 2006
Articles about innovative but definitely not mainstream transportation, energy and policy concepts. We invite you to submit your Out of the Box ideas to editor@evworld.com
Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems were invented at least a couple of decades ago, but none has succeeded commercially as yet. One reason is the resistance of various vested interests and lobbies, preserving their kingdoms which are large, expensive infrastructures. Ignorance on the part of policy and decision makers is the other factor, while lack of inexpensive means to implement computer control and sensor/automation functions played a major role too.
But these obstacles have mostly crumbled now and this is why, PRTs will likely avalanche across the World soon, as no other transportation system to date. They just have too many good qualities. What more could one wish for than having a public transportation system, which is individual, collision-free, comfortable, safe, non-stop, inexpensive to use, operate and build and almost does not require any ground space? Oh, and is also "unworthy as a terrorist target".
Reader is referred to other easily accessible material describing the nature and benefits of PRT systems, as there is not enough space here to elaborate on them. A good starting point are websites: http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html www.advancedtransit.org and http://www.electric-bikes.com/prt.htm
Suffice to say, that for above mentioned reasons, PRT systems are likely to become a new mode of city transportation within the next decade or so. The World’s first commercial operation has already been ordered and it is ULTra system at Heathrow airport in UK. Although it is not very good PRT solution (slow, battery driven, low throughput and driving on mini freeways), yet it is a breakthrough.
However there are other systems in development and fighting for recognition and orders.
MISTER is one of the latest and serious contenders, because it is a high capacity system (16,000 passengers/hr) and without many problems of its competitors like ULTra. MISTER has already got several Letters Of Intent from cities, which want it a.s.a.p. It also has gathered support of several transport experts from the academic and commercial fields and research funds are being sought for this project at some Universities. If therefore confirms its credibility as a project for today, not a science fiction.
If MISTER’s designer, Ollie Mikosza, succeeds in drawing private investment for this project, it is likely that the prototype and production plant could be ready in 2 years.
After all, one does not have to be an Einstein to conclude, that it cannot take more than 2-3 months to design a truss rail and support columns, then another 3-6 months to build a 1 mile test track. Furthermore, to design and build a dozen of such simple vehicles cannot take more than 12-18 months (concurrently with infrastructure). Computer and automation systems will take longest, yet no more than 2 years, also concurrently. And all of this can be done by only a 200-300 people at an estimated cost of some $40 mln. It seems a petty cash amount, when compared to the infrastructure costs, where a mile of a light rail will cost this much and recently scuttled (just as well) Seattle monorail was planned at some $1 bln/mile right?!
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
15 comments so far...
18-Oct-2006
34944
The scams and schemes created by "faith based transit" are many and all work like a dream.
But that is because these very complex systems do not exist.
Posted by: scam artist
10-May-2006
20384
On sale now are cars which already have many of the components which will be required to make a reality of the 'driverless taxi' within the next 20 years. Personal communications technology already provides all the functions needed to call up and direct this 'ideal' form of local public transport. How can any other form of public transport compete with a door-to-door service? And this service will require no new infrastructure, apart from charging stations for its electric vehicles. There is already an obvious winner; it's just a decade or so away from realisation. And it won't use rails, of any sort.
Just imagine how attractive this will seem to an increasingly elderly population. By the time I should stop driving, 'driverless electric taxis' (DETs?) will be ready to keep me mobile. Which is a very comforting thought.
Posted by: Chris Ellis
14-May-2006
20884
We already have thousands of miles of rail that
are being used by a profitless Amtrak system.
Just get rid of the Amtrak trains and replace them
with four to six passeger vehicles that could
either be purchased or rented for a few dollars
a day. This would be mainly be effective for intercity travel.
Posted by: John Boyd
10-May-2006
20395
I can't help but get reminded of that scene from the movie Singles in which a similar idea (or was it the exact same thing?) was shot down by the reasoning that people simply like being in their own cars....
I hope at some point we can get over that hump.
Posted by: Marcus Heisler
11-May-2006
20432
I just watched Singles Friday. The guy designed a train. Trains, like all line-haul transit, are not PRT. A PRT vehicle would take a passenger from their boarding station directly to their destination station, without stopping or getting other passengers. Because of the nature of group transportation, a train, like a bus, has to stop everywhere someone wants to get on or get off. PRT would be much more time efficient for the passenger. It's also expected to be much cheaper to build than light rail or monorail. It would be grade separated, so it won't be affected by traffic jams on the street.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Personal_rapid_transit for more info.
Posted by: prt supporter
11-May-2006
20441
"The Self Transit Road and Rail Car was developed by William Alden in Massachusetts in the 1960s. Cars may leave the guided roadway to be driven conventionally." Future transport in cities by Brian Richards. Spon Press, 2001
My idea is a system that could be retrofitted into existing vehicles and existing vehicle infrastructure. The core of the system would be a computer system inside a standard vehicle that would compute how fast the vehicle can accelerate and decelerate. Let's call this the Personal Rapid Transport Computer or PRTC for short. The PRT computer could be placed inside any existing vehicle.
The PRTC system would need the automobile to have a GPS antenna to help the PRTC gauge the speed of the vehicle at all times. The GPS system can help the PRTC determine who much space is needed from an object to stop without hitting it.
...
The next two components would be small antennas with wireless routers on the front and rear bumpers. The antenna would send out a signal that would cover approximately 50 feet on the front and rear bumpers. These antennas would be communicating with other PRTCs to share information about each vehicles rate of acceleration and deceleration to determine the safest distance the vehicles can be apart from each other and still be able to accelerate and stop without hitting each other.
The final part of the system would be front, side and rear sensor systems that would feed the distance of the front and rear vehicles to the PRTC so that it can adjust the speed and distance for maximum safety and the side sensors to feed back to the PRTC the presence of vehicles around the system. The system would also help the vehicle avoid collision with other obstacles and to feed the information about such obstacles to other vehicles on the road.
The job of the PRTC system would be to create a virtual train. The PRTC controlled vehicles could turn HOV lanes into a virtual PRTC vehicle track allowing the virtual train to move faster, fairly close together taking advantage of the drafting effect and thereby significantly reducing the energy used by each vehicle.
To remove yourself from the virtual PRTC train you would simply push a button. The PRTC train would calculate the movements of the vehicles on the adjacent lane and if necessary slow the train down to allow the safe exit of your vehicle and then it would allow you to move into the adjacent lane to go to your desired destination. Once you are out of the virtual PRTC train the PRTC network would work itself back into the virtual train mode and work to increase its speed and its efficiency.
Entering an existing PRTC train would require you to reach it from the rear or a signal from your vehicle as you come along side the train would indicate where you could enter and an automated sequence of commands would control the your vehicles entry.
Keiji Mitsubuchi a research scientist working for Nihon Web Concepts, Ltd. In Tokyo wrote "When Bluetooth is used to exchange information with personal centers in other cars, it also becomes possible to provide such services as collision-prevention systems and systems for identifying areas of traffic congestion." January 26, 2003
Posted by: How about a simpler idea? Joseph Lado
11-May-2006
20447
Many of these ideas sound nice... but many people would be opposed to the idea of having more elevated road/track ways because in practice, they look lousy and block sunlight. This also goes for the elevated load/unload platforms that would also likely be required. And a speed of 40km/h is too slow. Most or all modern electric subways (like the one in Toronto) have regenerative braking as well and they are fairly quick (60-80Km/h).
Much of the subway system is underground in Toronto. In some downtown areas, you can live in a condo and go downstairs into the subway and get around and do things like see movies, go shopping, etc. without ever having to go outside. This is a big benefit when it's -20C outside.
Also, many cities like Toronto are working to bury wires. This cable-car solution would increase the number of wires in the air. I have yet to see elevated wires that make a city street look good.
Unless you're in an earthquake zone, the best place for any urban public transit or train system is underground - particularly in climates that get snow.
Cheaper and easier ways to cut traffic are:
-Tax credits for living close to work.
-Higher fuel taxes
-higher taxes on vehicles that take up a lot of space
-lower taxes on vehicles that take up little space
-make transit passes tax deductable
-road tolls
-set a fixed percentage of vehicle registration fees set aside for public transit.
Posted by: Peter Stern
11-May-2006
20450
The "ultralight" infrastructure of PRT (MISTER or other systems) minimizes the blockage of sun and the level of noise generated by the system. I think that if someone ever succeeded in putting a system like this into operation, people would find it as interesting and remarkable as, say, the transparent elevators on the outside of tall hotels, which are informal tourist attractions in their own right! They would add to, rather than detracting from, the character of a place, without the objectionable noise, vibration, and sun-blockage that was characteristic of the "els" in previous eras.
I don't like the idea of automated vehicles (or, for that matter, MORE vehicles of any kind) at street level. Streets are already too congested and dangerous. By removing its vehicles from mainstream traffic via the elevated, dedicated guideway, PRT sidesteps many problems that can only be solved at street level by means of complex and uproven technology. The additional, above-grade infrastructure would be a bad thing if it were too intrusive and too expensive. But PRT's lightweight, inexpensive infrastructure seems to strike an appropriate compromise.
While door-to-door service is certainly to be desired, it can't really happen unless transport operates at street level. I think that the PRT solution of many small stations scattered throughout neighborhoods in a city is a good compromise. Most people would have PRT access after a very short walk. By the time that PRTs are available, those who didn't want to walk could use Segue-type vehicles or motorized wheelchairs to get to the nearest PRT access point.
Posted by: James Merritt
11-May-2006
20458
I wanted to add that the problems of inclement weather and inhospitable climate are serious for PRT. Clearly, overhead PRT "would not fly" in areas that tend to be very cold or stormy, partially because of the exposure of the system to the elements, and partially because of the need to walk even a short distance to get to a system access point.
Many of the foul-weather situations that would halt or hinder PRT service, however, would also make automobile driving, buses, or above-ground trains very inconvenient or even dangerous. PRT (of the non-hanging variety) can be implemented within and around great mall structures, or semi-underground "cities" such as have been built in the US north and Canada.
No single transport mode will do, and PRT (whether of the MISTER design or using other approaches) will not be appropriate for every passenger, every transport need, or every locality. But it does seem promising as one of several options (including conventional autos and trucks operating on regular streets), which should be available to people in a city environment. In particular, I think that PRT could be more attractive and cost-effective than light-rail and buses, and could reduce the need for taxi-cabs, in many urban and suburban situations.
Posted by: James Merritt
12-May-2006
20468
As an author, I'd like to thank everybody for their coments so far and
to explain few things, which seem to have been missunderstood
As anauthor, I'dlike to thankeverybody for theircomentsso far and to explainfewthings, whichseem to havebeenmissunderstood.
No autoamted, door-to-doorground transport (electricor not) will solvetraffic jam problems.
MISTER haspatentedextension,
wherebywithinprobably 5 yearsaftermaking 1st system, it will havedoor-to-doorservice. In thatextensionof 1st version, gondola vehicles will be
transferedatthestopsontotheelectricplatforms (like a golf cart), which will driveautomatically to thedoor. Fromthere, it will go to pickupsoeoneelseattheirdoor step and return to thenearest stop for a transfer
via rails to the stop colsest to thedestination. Theretheprocess will be repeated. etc.
Theonlysolution to fightcongestionis to RE-USEtheveicles.
We'llstillhaveourcars
for specialtrips etc., but
for 80% of transport needs,
MISTER will solveourproblems.
MISTER
will be warm (easy to heatupsmallspacein a shorttime, whenthereare no intermediatestops). Itcanalsohaveenclosed stop areasand on a groundlevel.
MISTER
will be very much foulweather proof.
Averagespeedof 40km/h ismuchebetterthan 80km/h top speed by
metro, orother "sequential stop" transport. No metro intheWorldhas a 40
kmaveragespeedandif one adds "walkingandwaitingtime"
atthestations,
itgetswellbelow30
km/h.
Digging underground istoocostlyandwon’tevergetyoucloseenough
to yourdestination, unlessitis
on theline. MISTER will get most peoplecloser to theirtargetthananygroup transit. Andwhen version-2 isimplemented, it will getyou to/fromthedoor.
MISTER will
havesmallest "skyblocking" footprintpossible.
There will be no need for elevatedplatforms (as insomeotherdesigns).
A streetlevel stop will be
standard, unless we want to place itinsidemalls, offices etc.
I hopethattheseclarificationsmightchangeperspectiveofpreviousandfuturereaders.
Keepchecking MISTER progressat www.mist-er.com
Bestregards
Ollie
Posted by: Ollie MIKOSZA (author)
12-May-2006
20474
When the inevitable happens and I have to stop driving, I can buy my own 'driverless electric taxi' for, say, $15,000. While I wouldn't trust many of my friends to actually DRIVE a car of mine, I'd be happy to lend them my DET, because it could always get home safely on its own. I might even make a bit of money by hiring it out.
In contrast, the minimum investment required to provide any form of useful above-ground rail system must be measured in millions. We can have DETs as soon as they are ready and legal, starting with one; imagine waiting around for the typical European city council to force through a monorail system against vocal opposition. Ditto most US cities.
Of course, Singapore and London have already demonstrated the most effective way of dealing with traffic congestion - 'rationing by price'. But don't get me wrong, I'm actually in favour of initiatives like MISTER; some may actually get built, funded by savage congestion charges. The poor will then be forced out of their SUVs into overhead gondolas, and I will be able to drive safely and swiftly from my village into the centre of town in my hybrid Jaguar, overtaken only by the occasional Ferrari, and passing my friends forever in my DET.
Sounds heavenly, if a little unlikely!
Posted by: Chris Ellis
12-May-2006
20479
For use outside of cities where rails are too expensive, at least for a few decades, hybrids already have the most expensive components required for 'v2', the motor/controller and batteries. Just add the 'zip lane option' of 3rd rail power pickup and auto-steer computer. Free electricity initially as an incentive to use it and zip lanes open to HOV antique (non 3rd rail) cars until 3rd rail cars become popular. The 3rd rail is safe enough since only on limited access roads and deenergized until a vehicle approaches.
Another great reason for Plug-in hybrids which can shorten pay-back time to months for hybrid stuff due to time and energy saved. Doesn't help with parking issues in cities like reusable DETs, but uses existing infrastructure the cheapest in suburbs and rural areas.
There is no 'one size fits all' option for vehicles of the future. A blend of options will probably do best.
Posted by: Brian Matheny
12-May-2006
20484
Guys! PLEASE reduce the size of your images to a maximum width of 425 pixels. You are distorting the layout of this page.
Posted by: Bill Moore
12-May-2006
20503
Just look up my patent disclosure on USPTO site, US Patent No.7,017,696. It is an electric diwheel PMD, and strangely it has a very simple PRT concept. It does not need any GPS. It is very simple to steer a diwheel of this idea. I called it virtual towing in 1999, when I made a provisional application to the USPTO.
------------------------------------------------
CLAIMS
[some of the relevant ones from the patent]
13. A vehicle, the center of gravity of said vehicle in the ground-contacting half of the horizontal section of said vehicle; said vehicle comprising: one large annulate wheel; said large annulate wheel comprising a large toroidal hub, and a correspondingly large toroidal axle joined to said vehicle to rotatably position and urge said large toroidal hub to effect rotatory movements of said large annulate wheel; at least one full rotor with magnetic and/or electromagnetic means of an electric motor, attached to or integrated with said large toroidal hub; at least one stator with magnetic and/or electromagnetic means of said electric motor, attached to or integrated with said large toroidal axle; at least one opening always fully encircled by said full rotor with magnetic and/or electromagnetic means of said electric motor, which is large enough to allow the entry and exit of the passenger of said vehicle, through said large toroidal axle; a bearing means linked to said large toroidal hub and said correspondingly large toroidal axle to decrease the friction between said large toroidal hub and said large toroidal axle during said rotatory movements of said large annulate wheel; one more said large annulate wheel placed apart from the first said large annulate wheel near-coaxially, a source of electric power connected by electrical and/or electronic connecting and processing units to each said electric motor on each said large annulate wheel, to rotatably urge each said electric motor which mechanically transfers a torque to each said large annulate wheel; and seating means to allow the passenger or passengers of said vehicle to sit at will facing any of the two ends of said vehicle, conventionally defined as the front end and the rear end.
14. A vehicle in accordance with claim 13, wherein said stator with magnetic and/or electromagnetic means of said electric motor is semi-annular in axial profile.
15. A vehicle in accordance with claim 13, wherein said electric motor is a permanent-magnet ac motor with or without magnetic sensors positioned on said stator with magnetic and/or electromagnetic means of said electric motor.
16. A vehicle in accordance with claim 13, wherein an addition of a set of hook or hitch means on the rear end of said vehicle converts said vehicle into a traction vehicle.
[[17. A vehicle in accordance with claim 13, wherein said vehicle has an electronic communication link means to exchange data from said electrical and electronic connecting and processing units of said vehicle with data from the electrical and electronic connecting and processing units of another vehicle, and so on, to form a linked train of vehicles; each vehicle from said linked train of vehicles is functionally identical with said vehicle and each of the electrical and electronic connecting and processing units is functionally identical with each of said electrical and electronic connecting and processing units.]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. A vehicle in accordance with claim 13, wherein said opening fully encircled by said full rotor with magnetic and/or electromagnetic means of said electric motor has full or partial cover means hinged or movably linked to said large toroidal axle or to said vehicle.
Posted by: Anadish Pal
31-May-2008
62001
There are several really good ideas here. I like the concept of a personal transport system. I'm afraid though, that existing cities are not the place to start with these masive infrastructure changes. What is needed is a new type of city, one designed from the ground up. Such a city would be located in a rural area somewhere in middle America, maybe Kansas. The city would be designed with growth and renewal in mind from the beginning. The city would be contained within a series of monoliths each together constructed within the space of one square mile. From a distance, the city would appear to be some kind of temple complex populated with massive step pyramids, but when you get closer, you notice that the steps of each of the pyramids is lined with modular appartments with private green spaces giving the whole the appearance of a mountain of hanging gardens. The spaces between the pyrimids are parks, gardens, and groves. Among the trees are quite electric PRTs zipping at tree top level. Powering this immence complex are a combination of advance renewable energy resources. We could build this city today. All the technology is available. All we need is one square mile of rural land, 100 or 200 billion dollars and about 100k people.
Posted by: Charles Marsh
... 
