I am also very interested in PRT and am rather amazed
that it is perpetually going nowhere. I have not
visited taxi 2000 for probably a year, and do not know
where the rhetoric stands, but as of about a year ago
they were claiming that a test track could be built
and tested for around 5 million...if this is the case,
why hasn't it happened yet? If this system is as good
as it sounds, I would suspect that getting
grants/investments to cover this initial outlay would
be immensly easy...what gives?
This seems to be a case that if in impressive enough
test track were develpoed with reasonable costs, it
would catch the popular imagination and sell itself.
Instead, we have LRT being rammed down our throats,
without having federal dollars committed as of yet.
I suppose that any PRT development at this point will
have to work off of the assumption the LRT will be in
place (at least this initial line) and work as feeders
and then cover the rest of the metro area...which
might not be a bad deal (for the taxi 200 folks, not
the general public) since the (assumably) private
investment will work well off of the publicly financed
line from downtaown to the airport and mall.
At least we will have our olympics-ready LRT from
airport to the downtown and MOA cash-points...
Jon Kelland
Bryant
--- "Steven C. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm a supporter of a system called Personal Rapid
> Transit,
> PRT. PRT is an idea that's been around since the
> 50's,
> but has yet to really be implemented anywhere. It
> consists
> of a network of elevated guideways - small, about a
> 3'x3'
> (90cmx90cm) cross section - carrying small,
> low-occupancy vehicles.
> Because the vehicles are light weight (1000 lbs =
> 450 kg), the
> guideway is small, light, and inexpensive to build.
>
> All the stations are "offline" - that is, on a
> separate switching
> from the main track. If you don't need to stop at a
> station, you
> just roll by. And the computer-controlled vehicles
> can switch
> between lines, delivering you to anywhere on the
> network.
>
> So to ride this thing, you would walk into a station
> anytime, day or
> night, and buy a ticket to another station anywhere
> on the network
> (using an electronic ticket machine). Then you get
> into the next
> available vehicle and you're on your way. (During
> rush hour, you
> might have to wait a couple minutes.) You get a
> non-stop trip at
> a constant speed of, say, 30 mph.
>
> No schedules to worry about. No transfers. 24-hour
> on-demand service.
> Faster than your car for many applications. And no
> traffic hassles.
>
> This is an innovation that will get people out of
> their cars.
>
> Professor Ed Anderson of the University of Minnesota
> pioneered a complete
> redesign of PRT from the ground up. This technology
> was spun off from
> the U, forming the Taxi 2000 corporation. They have
> a thoroughly
> engineered design - they know where every cog would
> go, and they have
> complete and independently audited cost estimates.
>
> Because of the lightweight design, the total
> estimated cost per mile
> of construction is less than $10 million - for the
> guideway, all vehicles,
> and 2 stations. This compares to $45 million (and
> counting?) per mile
> in the Hiawatha Light-Rail project.
>
> Also because of the light weight and the lack of
> unnecessary starts and
> stops, these little electronic vehicles would get
> energy efficiency
> equivalent to 85 miles per gallon. The operating
> cost, per passenger,
> per mile, is estimated at 15 cents.
>
> We could put a system like this in downtown
> Minneapolis - 9 miles of guideway
> in a couple big loops, putting a station within 4
> blocks of any location.
> Cost: $90 million. But the benefits! There could
> be a station leading
> directly into the skyway. Workers, shoppers,
> whoever could park their cars
> on the outskirts of downtown and get an immediate
> ride to their office -
> thus reducing the stress on more central parking
> areas. Buses could link
> up with the PRT system on the outskirts as well, and
> not clog downtown
> streets. Such a system could pay for itself in less
> than a decade - without
> any subsidies for rides.
>
> You can find out more about this proposal at
>
http://www.SteveAnderson.org/issues/prt/minneapolis.html
> (Complete with a map of the proposed guideways.)
>
> We could do a similar system in downtown St. Paul.
> See a map of that on
> the "Citizens for PRT" site at
> http://www.cprt.org/page4.htm
> (Citizens for PRT is a small charitable, educational
> organization.)
>
> Once that's a success, you could expand into
> neighborhoods near downtown.
> Many of these neighborhoods have low-income
> residents who could really
> benefit from a reliable, on-demand, 24-hour transit
> service. If the
> system works as well as I think we would have every
> reason to expect,
> we would continue to grow it from there, adding
> trunk lines out along
> major freeways (like 394 and 35W). Within the next
> 30-50 years we could
> cover the entire metro area with a reasonable
> density of lines, so that
> PRT would be a practical way to get from anywhere,
> to anywhere.
>
> Other possibilities:
> - Use it for (small) cargo! Build stations directly
> in to factories
> and warehouses to ship materials around the Twin
> Cities and to the airport.
> - Build a PRT line designed to go 80-100 mph between
> the Twin Cities
> and places like Duluth and Rochester. (Imagine, a
> fast, nonstop ride
> from your neighborhood to downtown Duluth.)
> - Privatize, if you like: since the system could
> realistically operate
> without a subsidy, one option for constructing it
> would be for the state,
> cities, and counties to grant right of way and for a
> private company to
> build and run the system at a profit. (Such a
> company would probably need
> to be regulated like a utility, as it would have an
> effective monopoly.)
>
> Democrats like Carol Flynn have been blocking PRT
> because it would
> "distract from" their plans for light rail.
> Republicans are focused
> on preserving the "freedom to drive". Neither rail
> nor more freeway
> lanes offer any long-term hope for substantially
> reducing our dependence
> on the automobile. PRT is a new idea that could
> make a real difference,
> and this Bipartisan legislature refuses to even pass
> a bill to study it.*
>
> And that, in a nutshell, is what got me into the
> race for Minnesota
> Senate, District 62, with the Independence Party of
> Minnesota. :)
> PRT isn't my only issue - check the web site for
> much much more -
> but it's an issue where I hope to make a real
> difference in the
> quality of life of Minnesotans for decades to come.
>
> Relevant disclaimers: I am in no way financially
> connected with Taxi 2000
> (http://www.taxi2000.com), I just think they've got
> a really solid idea.
> And (*) I should acknowledge that individual
> legislators, like Senator
> John Marty (DFL) and Representative Torrey Westrom
> (R), have been very
> open to the idea of PRT, even though their party
> leadership has been very
> closed. "Credit where it's due."
>
> And finally I would like to mention that this system
> is such a "Nader"
> compared to the Bush and Gore of conventional
> transit systems, that Nader
> actually expressed his support for it at his speech
> to the National Press
> Club.
>
> --
> Steven C. Anderson 612-722-6658 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The Independence Party Candidate for Minnesota
> Senate, District 62
> http://www.SteveAnderson.org/
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
