[Komiksulo]

In order to work, PRT needs to be a standardised option on regular cars as well as a separate class of vehicles. Get it, get in the entrance lane, and let Traffic Control take you to the exit lane nearest your destination. Later, with in-road guidance, it clould take you from door to door (well, driveway to driveway).

The PRT option could involve rail wheels that drop down when you start the transition process. Plug in hybrids would allow electric running, too.

The book YV88 from the seventies mentioned laying rails down the middle of the freeways, not for a separate system, but for convoys of guided cars and vans. And in 2081, the roads had marker pegs every hundred metres or so that provided local mapping info to guide passing cars.

 

[EnviroTO]

You seem to be dismissing the report without having read it. And what do you mean by competitive? Competitive with the likes of the Spadina LRT? How competitive is replacing the profitable 77 bus route with the 140 million LRT that looses $20,000 per week?

I did read it and the reports compare theoretical PRT costs against real LRT costs... primarily LRT systems which I don't think are a shining example of how efficient LRT can be. You like to compare to the TTC's current LRT. Do you think the TTC is using bus, LRT, and subway as efficiently as possible? Do you not think it possible for the TTC to screw up a PRT implementation to be inefficient? My point is that moving more people from point A to point B is always more efficient than moving less when using the same technologies. The projections of an ideal PRT system require far more routings than would be considered with LRT or metro, it requires far more infrastructure than considered with a bus. There are situations where PRT will make sense but it will be in small systems much like a horizontal elevator with light but frequent loads to a number of common and limited destinations.

I would agree with Komiksulo, that to be viable PRT would be an enhancement to cars and while it would be more efficient than cars alone (much like freeways are more efficient that local roads).

Still, I don't believe it would compare to a proper public transit system with a range of rail/metro (local and express) services in fully isolated ROWs, LRT services in a fully isolated ROW, local services with proper traffic light priority, and walking/biking would be cheaper to implement, can be implemented with todays technology, and would be more efficient. PRT as illustrated in those reports would require visible elevated infrastructure all over the city, would require implementing technology which is currently theory, and a fleet of vehicles that far exceeds what public transit currently uses with each vehicle requiring maintenance, each high-speed switch requiring maintenance, etc.

 

[urbanfan89]

We already have PRT. It's called the "car". The special guideways are called "roads", and we in Toronto have the widest guideway in the world, called the "401".

Currently most PRT vehicles run on a liquid, petroleum-derived fuel called "gasoline", and are controlled by devices called the "steering wheel", "gas", "break", and "gear". Unfortunately, PRT vehicles tend to damage the environment, and in urban areas eat up large amounts of otherwise useful space called "parking lots". This is well documented in many cities with names such as "Detriot", "Atlanta", "Houston", and "Los Angeles (simply known as "LA")".