# PRTProject - The future of transportation



## MrFSS

In the simplest definition, the PRT puts the automobile on tracks. The vehicles are small, individualized, fully automated (no driver), and fully electric. But rather than coexist with the automobile, the PRT system

*LINK*


----------



## WhoozOn1st

A very elaborate, and very funny, JOKE. I'm no longer hysterical, and have climbed back on my chair, but I'm still laughing!

At first I was all "Well maybe..." I try to be open to new ideas. Then I saw the shot of of little vehicles parked on individual tracks in front of a Home Depot. That's when I realized I'd been had, and fell off my chair cracking up.

Good one, MrFSS!


----------



## MrFSS

You laugh, but there are folks out there who are serious about this. See these links.

*LINK ONE*

*LINK TWO*


----------



## Green Maned Lion

If this comes to be, I shall cry.

Effective transportation system is as thus:

The following publicly operated:

1) Air craft for distances exceeding 2000 miles.

2) Efficient, high speed rail networks linking all major cities, overnight if need be.

3) A comprehensive grid of sub-teranian or light-surface rail creating a grid about 4 blocks between lines.

This last, privately owned:

1) Built by New Balance, Reebock, Nike, and others- SNEAKERS.

Are people in this country too lazy to walk a maximum of 2 and a half blocks? Its the kind of old school semi-innovation that created dot-matrix printers. We needed to have more flexibility in character creation, but continued to operate on the theory that mechanical text output required percussion on solid-state ink. We need more efficient tranportation, but we need door-to-door service and total control over mobility. Get out of the taxi, and fricken walk. We wouldn't be such an overweight country if people walked. Sheesh.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

MrFSS said:


> You laugh, but there are folks out there who are serious about this. See these links.
> *LINK ONE*
> 
> *LINK TWO*


Dang it, Tom, you got me started all over again. For starters, the vehicles are inherently funny-looking; they look to be straight out of the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper." And that test track at Cardiff resembles nothing so much as a Lionel layout on my living room floor when I was a kid. The whole concept just seems preposterous. Leave it to the Limeys, I guess. :lol:


----------



## GG-1

Well at first I wasn't going to comment but ... reminds me of the Jetsons!


----------



## George Harris

It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.


----------



## GG-1

George Harris said:


> It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.


Aloha

Having an idea of George's background I appreciate this comment.

Mahalo


----------



## Green Maned Lion

George Harris said:


> It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.


No sh*t. But un-affordability has never stopped a huge number of other boondoggles. Think of New York's solution to its traffic problems, and think of how the Big Digs budget could have been better spent removing cars from the road rather than making room for them in Boston, too. I will be really really really sad if this thing ever actually comes to being. But I won't be surprised. Like Hybrid powertrains, ethanol fuel additives, all-electric cars like the EV1, and hybrid sport utilities, its a boondoggle. It seemed like a good idea at first conception, and they have kept on all of them long after they have been demonstrated to be useless for their purpose. But the People keep screaming, "DO SOMETHING!!!!!". So they do something. So it looks like they are doing something.


----------



## Guest_gary_*

Green Maned Lion said:


> 1) Built by New Balance, Reebock, Nike, and others- SNEAKERS.
> Are people in this country too lazy to walk a maximum of 2 and a half blocks? Its the kind of old school semi-innovation that created dot-matrix printers. We needed to have more flexibility in character creation, but continued to operate on the theory that mechanical text output required percussion on solid-state ink. We need more efficient tranportation, but we need door-to-door service and total control over mobility. Get out of the taxi, and fricken walk. We wouldn't be such an overweight country if people walked. Sheesh.


What about elderly who aren't up for the hike? What about people trying to move cargo?

gary

www.PRTProject.com


----------



## Guest_gary_*

George Harris said:


> It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.


Can you provide a link or other such info on these other "old ideas"?

gary

www.prtproject.com


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Guest_gary_* said:


> What about elderly who aren't up for the hike? What about people trying to move cargo?
> gary
> 
> www.PRTProject.com


For every rule there are exceptions, naturally. But most people who are elderly would be more fit to walk had they been walking considerably their entire life. Many people who can't walk notable distances can't do so largely or partially because their muscle strength, cardiovascular endurance, and will power are not up to it, as a result of a very limited degree of exercise. My mother worked at a school not a quarter mile from our house, which is in the suburbs. She would drive to work, get out of her car, and walk another 100 feet or less to her office, sit down, and not get up much for the rest of the day. Over the years she was at this job, she gained a lot of weight, and walking a mile on the treadmill is now difficult.

I used to run marathons, my greatest achievement being finishing the New York marathon about 5 years ago. I didn't do well place-wise, but damnit, I finished. Sometimes in the City I don't take the subway and walk 5 or more miles to where I am going. I enjoy it, its easy, and its good for me. I think that people who walked everywhere would have a body that, due to the needs placed on it, would avoid damaging its ability to walk in favour of things less needed.

Naturally there are exceptions to this rule. There are really old people, people with disabilities, and other people who for whatever reasons can't walk more than a few feet. And yes, they need to have some kind of transportation between places. Given a world where people walk the last few blocks to their destination, this would be a very small percentage, say 15%, and I'm being generous. These people could use vans. Standard, internal combustion powered vans. Or even, since they would generally be used between transportation hubs in cities and destinations within them, they could even be small electrical powered vehicles. But there is no need for them to be something as complicated or expensive as the PRT you discuss. A hyper golf cart, like the already extant GEM Electric City Car would be fine.

Transporting goods is a whole different thing entirely. But imagine the roads if 85% of private passenger vehicle traffic was removed from them. They'd be empty. And there is no reason why the clean, and very efficient, 18-wheeler diesel trucks, that currently do the job of hauling cargo should not continue hauling cargo from freight-rail and freight-air hubs to destinations within cities. Obviously, smaller and less powerful vehicles could haul smaller amounts of cargo.

The system I describe would be more efficient than what you describe. What you describe, by its very nature, would not be substantially more efficient than a person driving a standard road electric car. And research indicates that these vehicles are less efficient than their gas counterparts in areas where electricity is not generated using nuclear fission or renewable energy. They CAN'T be. Any transmission of energy will result in a loss of it. It is less efficient to generate electricity using a gas motor, connect it to an electric motor, and use that electric motor to move something, then to use the gas motor directly. Hybrids gain efficiency by reclaiming energy using regenerative braking, as well as shutting off the motor when stopped. Were these features not implemented in them, they would be less efficient than an all-gas powered vehicle.

Electric technology benefits not from how efficient it is, but in the kind of energy an electric motor produces. It produces its force primarily in the form of torque, rather than horsepower. A 30hp electric engine generates something like 160 lb-ft of torque, and it generates at every RPM setting above zero up to its redline. In comparison, a gas motor is a lot less torque efficient. A appocryphal example would be Hondas original S2000 motor, a 2-litre DOHC 4-cylinder marvel of technology. It generates an incredible 240 horsepower from those two litres, giving it the highest naturally aspirated specific power output of any engine built. It has a redline just under 9000 rpm. It generates a measly 153 lb-ft, and only when turning at about 7500 rpm. It is a gutless motor at its lower RPMs.

Its ok in a light roaster like the Honda S2000. But for a vehicle weighing as much as a large electric train does, torque is what matters. Torque is why diesel-powered locomotives use electric engines to transmit power. Because of the size of, say, an Amtrak Reigonal, electricity can power it along more efficiently than diesel does.

By striniging cars together, you allow power to be used more efficiently. A Ford E350 diesel has very little performance variation carrying 1 passenger, or 15 passengers. Carrying one passenger, it gets about 10 passenger miles for every gallon. Carrying 15, it gets close to 150 passenger miles per gallon. A train gets very high passenger miles per gallon because the power is being consolidated, and thus, more efficiently used.



Guest_gary_* said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a link or other such info on these other "old ideas"?
> 
> gary
> 
> www.prtproject.com
Click to expand...

You are taking the idea of a car, placing it on tracks, and calling it revolutionary. Its the same thinig, except computer controlled. Its not more efficient, or useful.


----------



## gdstark

Green Maned Lion said:


> Guest_gary_* said:
> 
> 
> 
> What about elderly who aren't up for the hike? What about people trying to move cargo?
> gary
> 
> www.PRTProject.com
> 
> 
> 
> For every rule there are exceptions, naturally. But most people who are elderly would be more fit to walk had they been walking considerably their entire life. Many people who can't walk notable distances can't do so largely or partially because their muscle strength, cardiovascular endurance, and will power are not up to it, as a result of a very limited degree of exercise. My mother worked at a school not a quarter mile from our house, which is in the suburbs. She would drive to work, get out of her car, and walk another 100 feet or less to her office, sit down, and not get up much for the rest of the day. Over the years she was at this job, she gained a lot of weight, and walking a mile on the treadmill is now difficult.
> 
> I used to run marathons, my greatest achievement being finishing the New York marathon about 5 years ago. I didn't do well place-wise, but damnit, I finished. Sometimes in the City I don't take the subway and walk 5 or more miles to where I am going. I enjoy it, its easy, and its good for me. I think that people who walked everywhere would have a body that, due to the needs placed on it, would avoid damaging its ability to walk in favour of things less needed.
> 
> Naturally there are exceptions to this rule. There are really old people, people with disabilities, and other people who for whatever reasons can't walk more than a few feet. And yes, they need to have some kind of transportation between places. Given a world where people walk the last few blocks to their destination, this would be a very small percentage, say 15%, and I'm being generous. These people could use vans. Standard, internal combustion powered vans. Or even, since they would generally be used between transportation hubs in cities and destinations within them, they could even be small electrical powered vehicles. But there is no need for them to be something as complicated or expensive as the PRT you discuss. A hyper golf cart, like the already extant GEM Electric City Car would be fine.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that people need more exercise. This system doesn't prevent that. But there are still plenty of additional advantages of door-to-door transportation. It addresses incliment weather. In some places it's safer. If your mother lived in east LA, how far do you want her walking to reach public transportation? And since my system REPLACES the automobile, the pathways for door-to-door service already exist, so why not?



> Transporting goods is a whole different thing entirely. But imagine the roads if 85% of private passenger vehicle traffic was removed from them. They'd be empty. And there is no reason why the clean, and very efficient, 18-wheeler diesel trucks, that currently do the job of hauling cargo should not continue hauling cargo from freight-rail and freight-air hubs to destinations within cities. Obviously, smaller and less powerful vehicles could haul smaller amounts of cargo.


 So you propose we keep using diesel to haul freight? The goal is to get away from fossil fuels (biofuels are a fraud).



> The system I describe would be more efficient than what you describe. What you describe, by its very nature, would not be substantially more efficient than a person driving a standard road electric car.


First of all, I don't understand what system you're proposing (beyond tennis shoes), so it's hard for me to compare the two.



> And research indicates that these vehicles are less efficient than their gas counterparts in areas where electricity is not generated using nuclear fission or renewable energy. They CAN'T be. Any transmission of energy will result in a loss of it. It is less efficient to generate electricity using a gas motor, connect it to an electric motor, and use that electric motor to move something, then to use the gas motor directly. Hybrids gain efficiency by reclaiming energy using regenerative braking, as well as shutting off the motor when stopped. Were these features not implemented in them, they would be less efficient than an all-gas powered vehicle.
> Electric technology benefits not from how efficient it is, but in the kind of energy an electric motor produces. It produces its force primarily in the form of torque, rather than horsepower. A 30hp electric engine generates something like 160 lb-ft of torque, and it generates at every RPM setting above zero up to its redline. In comparison, a gas motor is a lot less torque efficient. A appocryphal example would be Hondas original S2000 motor, a 2-litre DOHC 4-cylinder marvel of technology. It generates an incredible 240 horsepower from those two litres, giving it the highest naturally aspirated specific power output of any engine built. It has a redline just under 9000 rpm. It generates a measly 153 lb-ft, and only when turning at about 7500 rpm. It is a gutless motor at its lower RPMs.
> 
> Its ok in a light roaster like the Honda S2000. But for a vehicle weighing as much as a large electric train does, torque is what matters. Torque is why diesel-powered locomotives use electric engines to transmit power. Because of the size of, say, an Amtrak Reigonal, electricity can power it along more efficiently than diesel does.


So let me get this straight...you believe that a gas (or diesel) engine is more energy efficient than an electric engine? And even if you believe this, do you also believe that generating these combustible fuels is comparable to generating electricity with respect to environmental an political considerations? That's certainly a new one on me.



> By striniging cars together, you allow power to be used more efficiently. A Ford E350 diesel has very little performance variation carrying 1 passenger, or 15 passengers. Carrying one passenger, it gets about 10 passenger miles for every gallon. Carrying 15, it gets close to 150 passenger miles per gallon. A train gets very high passenger miles per gallon because the power is being consolidated, and thus, more efficiently used.


Stringing cars together? I guess I still don't understand what you're proposing...



> Guest_gary_* said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a new face on an old idea. It is also completely unworkable in any high density population area and unaffordable in a low density population area.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you provide a link or other such info on these other "old ideas"?
> 
> gary
> 
> www.prtproject.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are taking the idea of a car, placing it on tracks, and calling it revolutionary. Its the same thinig, except computer controlled. Its not more efficient, or useful.
Click to expand...

The same thing?! Nonsense. There are MANY reasons that this system would be much more efficient, foremost because it IS computer controlled. Do you really believe that you're as efficient in your driving as a computer? That you know exactly how much brake to apply? That you are aware of obstacles or slowdowns just around the corner that you cannot yet see? Or that you've never been held up by rubberneckers? Or that you NEVER get tired behind the wheel? Or that you can see in the darkness as well as a system using infrared imaging? You may disagree with my concept, but I cannot imagine anyone not seeing the advantages of applying automation to transportation.

And btw, you did NOT give any examples of how this is an "old" idea. Still waiting on that one.

gary

www.PRTProject.com


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Perhaps gary should apply his undoubted expertise to reviving the AeroCar or autogyros.

He says there are "MANY reasons that this system would be much more efficient, foremost because it IS computer controlled." I for one would like to see those many reasons enumerated here in the forum, sans promotional website.

Foremost, to use gary's term, I would like to know where he expects funding for his idea to come from. Hindmost, the electricity still has to be generated somewhere. Is gary proposing a massive building program of coal-fired powerplants to energize his PRTProject? Nuclear power? Windmills? Bacteria that generate electricity? Our nation is strapped for power as it is.

The photo of little vehicles on little tracks in front of a Home Depot on the PRTProject website only serves to emphasize how ludicrous the concept is. Picture every parking lot turned into a railyard. And that concept photo showed the vehicles parked right by the door of the store. What if your computerized Jetsonsmobile parked further away? You'd have to pick your way over a maze of tracks and switches to get to the store. I fail to see how such an arrangement would be of help to the elderly, disabled, or people trying to move cargo. Maybe gary has a plan for levitational skyways to get people and their goods between stores and vehicles. If not that, grade crossing signals at every parking space. A technological marvel!

There may well be new transit technologies in our future, but PRT isn't one of them.

Finally, since gary brought it up, my mother grew up in East L.A., and somehow managed to survive. I've seen the house she grew up in, and it was 1/2 block to catch an L.A. Railway streetcar; a workable transit system, along with the Pacific Electric, that was killed by clowns pushing junk like PRT. Back then they went by the names of General Motors, Firestone, et al.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

gdstark said:


> Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that people need more exercise. This system doesn't prevent that. But there are still plenty of additional advantages of door-to-door transportation. It addresses incliment weather. In some places it's safer. If your mother lived in east LA, how far do you want her walking to reach public transportation? And since my system REPLACES the automobile, the pathways for door-to-door service already exist, so why not?


Because there is no advantage to tracking vehicles, and it costs money. A car is a car, whether on a track or on its own. It uses the same amount of resources whether it is on rails, or not. Waste. Of. Money.



gdstark said:


> So you propose we keep using diesel to haul freight? The goal is to get away from fossil fuels (biofuels are a fraud).


Yes. It is very efficient. A fossil-fuel free world is a pipe dream in our life times. Greatly reducing its usage is, on the other hand realistic. Second, I own two cars. Both are Mercedes-Benzes, and both run on diesel. One of those cars has a WVO conversion, and I'd like you to explain to me how the fuel I use to get around is a "fraud". Bio-fuels would work pretty damned well if we reduce our consumption to the level at which 50% or more of our diesel fuel could be based upon our bio-waste, such as used cooking oil.



gdstark said:


> First of all, I don't understand what system you're proposing (beyond tennis shoes), so it's hard for me to compare the two.


A hub-and-spoke national, state, city, and local mass transportation network. Using planes for long distances, high-speed trains for medium and short distances, and mass-rapid-transit within cities combined with the apparent crime of trying to walk the rest of the way.



gdstark said:


> So let me get this straight...you believe that a gas (or diesel) engine is more energy efficient than an electric engine? And even if you believe this, do you also believe that generating these combustible fuels is comparable to generating electricity with respect to environmental an political considerations? That's certainly a new one on me.


Ask anyone who understands physics. The electricity doesn't just appear. Transmission of any energy in our planet results in a less than 100% efficient transmission of that energy. If I use a 100bhp engine to generate electricity, that electricity can not power a 100bhp electric motor. It would power a less powerful motor. It has to. There is a degree of power lost by its transmission. Period. A diesel engine hooked up to a massively large transportation mechanism, such as a 10 car train, is more efficient than 30 dozen small electrical jokes in their place. Sorry, but its simply a fact. A train carrying 200 passengers weighs less, and is more efficient, than 100 personal vehicles transporting two people, or even 40 personal vehicles transporting 5 people.



gdstark said:


> Stringing cars together? I guess I still don't understand what you're proposing...


Its a device known as a "train". A "train" is any transportation device that has multiple articulated parts. In Austrailia, they have "road trains", 4 or 5 trailers being pulled by a powerful Peterbilt.



gdstark said:


> The same thing?! Nonsense. There are MANY reasons that this system would be much more efficient, foremost because it IS computer controlled. Do you really believe that you're as efficient in your driving as a computer? That you know exactly how much brake to apply? That you are aware of obstacles or slowdowns just around the corner that you cannot yet see? Or that you've never been held up by rubberneckers? Or that you NEVER get tired behind the wheel? Or that you can see in the darkness as well as a system using infrared imaging? You may disagree with my concept, but I cannot imagine anyone not seeing the advantages of applying automation to transportation.
> And btw, you did NOT give any examples of how this is an "old" idea. Still waiting on that one.
> 
> gary
> 
> www.PRTProject.com


Computer controlled and efficiency are not the same thing. I may or may not be more efficient in my driving as a computer. I don't care, I prefer driving myself. I drive a 14 year old car because it doesn't have a computer, the last model sold in the US that didn't have one. But thats besides the point. I am fully aware of obstacles as I see them, and I tend to think I am skilled enough to avoid them. I hold the local SCCA rally title, if you really care to know. But that is all besides the point.

All of these things work a LOT better if you consolidate all that structure into one long vehicle called a train. Sorry, but its simply reality.

Its an old idea because what you are doing is taking a CAR, a standard automobile, and putting it on tracks. It is NO different. It solves no problems. It is a boondoggle to end all boondoggles. It solves nothing. It creates a ton of pointless vehicles and a pointless infrastructure that is perfectly fine the way it is.

Lastly, if you really want to know, car telemetrics and computers are close to advanced enough to drive themselves without rails. Honda offers a device on its european models and japanese models that steers the car and keeps it in lanes, assuming you continue to hold onto the steering wheel. Radar cruise control is almost old news, and navigation systems mean a car knows where it is. Your idea involves spending billions of dollars on an infrastructure that isn't needed. The roads work fine as roads, and if we were going to rail vehicles, they had better be bigger than the Fiat Cinquecentoesque devices you describe.


----------



## gdstark

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Perhaps gary should apply his undoubted expertise to reviving the AeroCar or autogyros.
> He says there are "MANY reasons that this system would be much more efficient, foremost because it IS computer controlled." I for one would like to see those many reasons enumerated here in the forum, sans promotional website.
> 
> Foremost, to use gary's term, I would like to know where he expects funding for his idea to come from. Hindmost, the electricity still has to be generated somewhere. Is gary proposing a massive building program of coal-fired powerplants to energize his PRTProject? Nuclear power? Windmills? Bacteria that generate electricity? Our nation is strapped for power as it is.
> 
> The photo of little vehicles on little tracks in front of a Home Depot on the PRTProject website only serves to emphasize how ludicrous the concept is. Picture every parking lot turned into a railyard. And that concept photo showed the vehicles parked right by the door of the store. What if your computerized Jetsonsmobile parked further away? You'd have to pick your way over a maze of tracks and switches to get to the store. I fail to see how such an arrangement would be of help to the elderly, disabled, or people trying to move cargo. Maybe gary has a plan for levitational skyways to get people and their goods between stores and vehicles. If not that, grade crossing signals at every parking space. A technological marvel!
> 
> There may well be new transit technologies in our future, but PRT isn't one of them.
> 
> Finally, since gary brought it up, my mother grew up in East L.A., and somehow managed to survive. I've seen the house she grew up in, and it was 1/2 block to catch an L.A. Railway streetcar; a workable transit system, along with the Pacific Electric, that was killed by clowns pushing junk like PRT. Back then they went by the names of General Motors, Firestone, et al.


Judging from your comments, you're missing one very key aspect of the proposal. You don't own the vehicles. They are a common utilty, just like a bus or subway. So there are no massive parking lots full of PRT vehicles. Gaining back acerage currently devoted to parking lots is actually one of the concept's advantages. Instead you only need enough disembarking positions to cover the people coming and going. To further clarify, the concept only requires enough vehicles to cover peak usage.

As for the energy source, I suspect it would be predominantly nuclear plants.

Finally, you asked where the money would come from to develop such a concept. I don't know. My only objective is to address our energy/transportation problems from an engineering perspective. Given that this country (USA) seems to be headed towards bankruptcy, it will probably be some other country that ultimately makes the real advances in transportation.



> The photo of little vehicles on little tracks in front of a Home Depot on the PRTProject website only serves to emphasize how ludicrous the concept is.


One minor point...there's an artist in Denmark who's in the process of recreating all the graphic for the website. That's why some of the graphics are so poor. I'm not much of an artist.

gary

www.PRTProject.com


----------



## gdstark

Green Maned Lion,



> It uses the same amount of resources whether it is on rails, or not. Waste. Of. Money.


Wrong. Steel wheels on rails require less energy to move the same weight as rubber tires on asphalt. Do you really think that it's an amazing coincidence of physics that they are equal?



> A fossil-fuel free world is a pipe dream in our life times. Greatly reducing its usage is, on the other hand realistic. Second, I own two cars. Both are Mercedes-Benzes, and both run on diesel. One of those cars has a WVO conversion, and I'd like you to explain to me how the fuel I use to get around is a "fraud".


There are a few billion people in China who want to purchase cars. Do you think the system will work if they each own two Mercedes-Benzes as well? As for biofuels, they take more energy to produce than they provide. For the most part total scientific fraud. I can point you to many websites that detail this if you like. The only people promote biofuels are the politicians in Iowa trying to please the farmers.



> A hub-and-spoke national, state, city, and local mass transportation network. Using planes for long distances, high-speed trains for medium and short distances, and mass-rapid-transit within cities combined with the apparent crime of trying to walk the rest of the way.


I'm curious...do you actually use public transportation? Or are you in the majority who find it impractical for their circumstances?



> Ask anyone who understands physics. ...snipe...


I don't need a lesson in physics from you. Obviously energy is lost WHENEVER it is transmitted. This is NOT an argument for diesel and against electrical engines.



> Its a device known as a "train".


Thanks for the clarification. Next time just call it a "train".



> Computer controlled and efficiency are not the same thing. I may or may not be more efficient in my driving as a computer.


I'm very impressed that your driving skills are a match for an automated system. I also don't believe you. And I doubt if anyone else does either. This is where your argument really gets silly.



> I don't care, I prefer driving myself. I drive a 14 year old car because it doesn't have a computer, the last model sold in the US that didn't have one.


No doubt there were people who didn't want to give up the horse & buggy in favor of the automobile. I understand.



> I am fully aware of obstacles as I see them, and I tend to think I am skilled enough to avoid them. I hold the local SCCA rally title, if you really care to know. But that is all besides the point.


Again, arguing that your reaction times are superior to a computer is just plain silly. Since computers get faster every year, presumably you are as well? Or are you so far ahead that they will never catch up? Just curious.



> All of these things work a LOT better if you consolidate all that structure into one long vehicle called a train.


Sorry, we already tried that. And nobody is using them.

> Its an old idea because what you are doing is taking a CAR, a standard automobile, and putting it on tracks. It is NO different. It solves no problems.

It's not a standard automobile. Tracks are not the same as asphalt. Not sure how anyone would judge those as the same. So when I asked you earlier to site your references of this being an "old" idea, your answer is that you really had none.

> Lastly, if you really want to know, car telemetrics and computers are close to advanced enough to drive themselves without rails.

Would you rather stand five feet from a PRT vehicle on rails traveling at 40mph? Or one of those Hondas using the automated system on an asphalt road? (hint: think blowouts and potholes)

gary

www.PRTProject.com


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Yeah, it's easy to poke holes in the porous positions of GML.

But we have yet to see a list of concrete reasons why a PRT is superior. Talk is cheap. Where are the engineering studies? If they exist, give us links to them. Where are the environmental impact studies? Where are the funding proposals, or at least ideas along those lines? What routes, in what cities, would best be served by PRT? Inquiring minds want to know.

The common utility argument is laughable. As with a regular transit system there would be periods of heavy and light usage. In times of light utilization you have to put the vehicles somewhere, or do you just leave them lying around at wherever until somebody wants to ride one? So much for not needing parking lots. Talk of only needing "disembarking positions" effectively nullifies the whole idea. What gary calls disembarking positions are known to most of us as "stations." What a revolutionary concept!

Gary, please give us positive chapter and verse on why PRT is good, instead of just trying to refute the case against it.

I think whoever did the graphics got it exactly right.

And if any other country wants to forge ahead in the PRT direction, I say let 'em go for it. Then we can see how it doesn't work and avoid a similar mistake.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

> Wrong. Steel wheels on rails require less energy to move the same weight as rubber tires on asphalt. Do you really think that it's an amazing coincidence of physics that they are equal?


That is a moot point. Most of the resources the average motor vehicle takes up are taken up during its production.



> There are a few billion people in China who want to purchase cars. Do you think the system will work if they each own two Mercedes-Benzes as well? As for biofuels, they take more energy to produce than they provide. For the most part total scientific fraud. I can point you to many websites that detail this if you like. The only people promote biofuels are the politicians in Iowa trying to please the farmers.


I can point you to a website that labels Mike Huckabee as the next Savior of humanity. To me, he is just a loudmouthed imbecile. My newer car is 14 years old, and the older turns 30 this year. I think you'll find a large number of cars fitting these general specifications employed throughout the third world. "Bio-fuels" constitute any fuel produced from biological matter. Corn oil is used extensively in cooking. It costs little money to collect used cooking oil, and use it to supplement the fuel currently used. Processing biomass strictly for powering cars is stupid, re-using that produced for other uses to power cars once its original purpose has been served is a different story entirely. It is not scientific fraud by any means. I am not a politician, nor do I live in Iowa. I promote bio-fuels as a key component in the solution to this country's energy problems, its not the be-all end-all, but its part of it.



> I'm curious...do you actually use public transportation? Or are you in the majority who find it impractical for their circumstances?


You are oblivious. Look up at the header of this website. "Amtraktrains.com" "Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum". Do I use public transit? I dunno, I guess I could be against mass transit, being here and all. Right. Of course I use public transit! Its the only sensible way to get into New York City. Public transport is they key to future transportation. I use the car to get places I have no alternative to.



> I don't need a lesson in physics from you. Obviously energy is lost WHENEVER it is transmitted. This is NOT an argument for diesel and against electrical engines.


Perhaps, but that doesn't have anything to do with this. This is not an argument of diesel vs. electric, this is an argument of direct vs. indirect transmission except in cases of a need for high-torque. The vehicles you describe are not vehicles requiring high torque.



> Thanks for the clarification. Next time just call it a "train".I'm very impressed that your driving skills are a match for an automated system. I also don't believe you. And I doubt if anyone else does either. This is where your argument really gets silly.


If you aren't the only one on this forum who didn't know that I was talking about a train, my mouth will open to the floor out of sheer astonishment.

Computers make decisions, but do not think. A computer can't, for example, notice the small indications that subconsciously alert the competent driver that the idiot at the stop sign is about to run it even though it will mean you will hit him if you maintain your current speed and course. A computer can not "think" and interpret based on intuition and experience the way a human can.



> No doubt there were people who didn't want to give up the horse & buggy in favor of the automobile. I understand.Again, arguing that your reaction times are superior to a computer is just plain silly. Since computers get faster every year, presumably you are as well? Or are you so far ahead that they will never catch up? Just curious.


Go to your local Ariel Atom or Caterham dealer and go for a test drive. Then take down your website. In any case, a computer is an additional complication. Additional complications break. Replacing a vehicle because its computer died and thus repairing it is uneconomical is bad for the environment. We should drive our cars for 20 to 30 years. That would be a useful conservation of resources.

Reaction time is a part of good driving, but only a part of it. A computer can't respond to the tiny messages the steering wheel sends to your fingertips that tell you its time to start counter steering to produce the fastest and best line around a corner.



> Sorry, we already tried that. And nobody is using them.


Where are you operating this theory from? Take the NY metro area. Over a million people arrive in New York City by train every day. Over five million people use its subways every day. And of the top ten cities in this country, New York has the least traffic problems because its public transit is extensive, comprehensive, and effective. Unlike most other systems. If our cities had the kind of commuter rail that serves New York, and the extensive, expedient, and economical rapid transit that serves its streets, more people would use them.



gdstark said:


> It's not a standard automobile. Tracks are not the same as asphalt. Not sure how anyone would judge those as the same. So when I asked you earlier to site your references of this being an "old" idea, your answer is that you really had none.


Ok, its a automobile with a tiny amount of window dressing. Its the same old idea because it is the same old idea. But since you want sources, here's one: Source. It is a waste of resources to use the kind of vehicle you describe to transport a small number of people, or one single person. It makes more sense to densely pack them the way they do in the NY subways. The number of passenger miles per gallon of fossil fuel for the New York subway must be damned impressive.



gdstark said:


> Would you rather stand five feet from a PRT vehicle on rails traveling at 40mph? Or one of those Hondas using the automated system on an asphalt road? (hint: think blowouts and potholes)


Ah, but with the computers you so highly vaunt, one must assume they can correct for such things!

Edit: Costello, if my argument is porus, what is Gary's?


----------



## WhoozOn1st

GML, I don't disagree with your ideas, but I think you're arguing with the trees instead of seeing the forest. That's just what PRT clowns want, because then they can cherry pick their own facts in rebuttal.

When PRT-type proponents are asked to explain their big picture, they really have nothing to say.

Personally, I'm looking forward to gary's positive explanation. We shouldn't expect to get one.


----------



## gdstark

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Yeah, it's easy to poke holes in the porous positions of GML.
> But we have yet to see a list of concrete reasons why a PRT is superior. Talk is cheap. Where are the engineering studies? If they exist, give us links to them. Where are the environmental impact studies? Where are the funding proposals, or at least ideas along those lines? What routes, in what cities, would best be served by PRT? Inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> The common utility argument is laughable. As with a regular transit system there would be periods of heavy and light usage. In times of light utilization you have to put the vehicles somewhere, or do you just leave them lying around at wherever until somebody wants to ride one? So much for not needing parking lots. Talk of only needing "disembarking positions" effectively nullifies the whole idea. What gary calls disembarking positions are known to most of us as "stations." What a revolutionary concept!
> 
> Gary, please give us positive chapter and verse on why PRT is good, instead of just trying to refute the case against it.
> 
> I think whoever did the graphics got it exactly right.
> 
> And if any other country wants to forge ahead in the PRT direction, I say let 'em go for it. Then we can see how it doesn't work and avoid a similar mistake.


WhoozOn1st999, what you see on my website is all I have. This is not my occupation. Nor do I have funding for research. I never claimed otherwise. I'm simply using my personal engineering common sense to explore alternatives to our transportation / energy problems.

You can certainly come to a different conclusion than I, but to state that there are zero advantages of such a system seems rather closed minded to me. Surely you can see the advantages of atomation, even if GML can't. Apparently GML has better reflexes and sees in the dark better than mechanical systems could ever accomplish. I suppose we'll have to take his word on that one.

A system that only requires enough vehicles to cover peak usage is another advantage, wouldn't you say? If you're only required to service and maintain N vehicles instead of 2N vehicles, that's an economy, right?

If a system eliminated the problems of rubbernecking, allows emergency vehicles to respond faster, transports children or elderly unassisted, that's an advantage, right? If the thousands of innocent people who die every year due to drunk drive were to survive, that's clearly an advantage.

Getting rid of the DMV. How could you not like that one? No more speeding tickets. No more smog checks. The elimination of all gas stations, auto dealerships and car salesmen. I would call those advantages.

If I could relax, read the paper and drink my coffee on the way to work instead of stressing over traffic, I am calling that an advantage. If my coffee doesn't spill because chain reaction start & stop driving is eliminated, that good too.

You mentioned environmental studies. I have none. All I can give you is my own gut feeling. My gut feeling is that fossil fuels are NOT the future. My gut is that it will be predominantly nuclear. And with nuclear, you have electricity (other byproducts are less efficient due to the conversions). So if you have electricity, it argues for electric vehicles. The primary problem with existing electric vehicles is the weight of the batteries and the need to constantly recharge. The system I propose uses electrified rails, thus bypassing that problem. While this is all speculation on my part, I will call this (direct electrical) an advantage of the design.

I have no funding proposals. The concept is restricted to engineering speculation.

As for which cities, I would say any large urban areas. As with all public transportation concepts, it works less well in urban areas. I appreciate that you and GML are proponents of trains, but you must admit that they can only service a small fraction of commuters since they require the coincidence of stations near both your home and work. I realize they work better for very vertical places like NY, but I would rather NOT see the rest of the world looking like NY. I prefer my skylines. I prefer to live in areas less vulnerable to terrorism. And I prefer less people than that. Just for reference I live in San Jose, just south of San Francisco. Where I live public transportation is a complete failure. The buses drive around empty most of the time and carry only a very small fraction of our commuters. The lightrail is inconvenient to everyone I know. I take bart occasionally, but I have to drive 30 miles just to reach a station first. So clearly San Jose and NY are at opposite ends of the public transportation success scale. And rather than turn San Jose into another NY, I would prefer some other solution to the transportation problem.



> In times of light utilization you have to put the vehicles somewhere, or do you just leave them lying around at wherever until somebody wants to ride one?


For the most part, you're correct. Some vehicles would be routed to service centers, some would park where usage is predicted next. Since I leave for work at 6:45am every morning, the system would "learn" my behavior and have a vehicle waiting for me. It stands to reason that you need many less total parking spots if you have many less total vehicles in the system.



> What gary calls disembarking positions are known to most of us as "stations."


To me a station is a common assembly point. I would not consider your home a "station". At the local mall a "taxi line" would form in anticipation of passengers. This is as close as it gets to a station in the PRT system.

gary


----------



## gdstark

GML, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. I do not think fossil (or bio) fuels are the future. And I do not think your reactions are comparable to that of a computer.

Your point about people needing to walk more is one that I strenuously agree with. And ride bikes. And telecommute. And live closer to their place of employment. All these are without a doubt the first line of defense in all this, even if I don't cover them in my proposal.

gary


----------



## AlanB

gdstark said:


> As for which cities, I would say any large urban areas. As with all public transportation concepts, it works less well in urban areas. I appreciate that you and GML are proponents of trains, but you must admit that they can only service a small fraction of commuters since they require the coincidence of stations near both your home and work. I realize they work better for very vertical places like NY, but I would rather NOT see the rest of the world looking like NY. I prefer my skylines. I prefer to live in areas less vulnerable to terrorism. And I prefer less people than that. Just for reference I live in San Jose, just south of San Francisco. Where I live public transportation is a complete failure. The buses drive around empty most of the time and carry only a very small fraction of our commuters. The lightrail is inconvenient to everyone I know. I take bart occasionally, but I have to drive 30 miles just to reach a station first. So clearly San Jose and NY are at opposite ends of the public transportation success scale. And rather than turn San Jose into another NY, I would prefer some other solution to the transportation problem.


First, any city or town is vulnerable to terrorism and its effects. Small is no guarantee that terrorists won't strike; may I remind you of Lockerbie Scotland?

Second, while I will admit that NYC is helped by being "vertical" as you call it, that isn't the only reason that our transportation system works here. It's simply because we actually have enough tracks still running trains to really make a difference. San Jose which either had no tracks or pulled out most of its tracks years ago, is now having to basically start all over, with the current light rail system being the first baby step. There are plans for a bigger system, which if realized would bring greater benefit to the city.

That said, while it may be incovienent to you and people that you know, some 10.3 million people rode that light rail system last year, for an average of almost 33,000 people every weekday.

As for those empty buses, they moved 31.6 million people last year for an average of 102,000 every weekday.

And next time you need to get to BART, consider taking Caltrain to reach BART, at least until BART reaches San Jose and it is coming. An average of 2,000 people board a Caltrain train in San Jose each weekday.

The above isn't intended to knock your idea or to support it, I'm just pointing out a few facts for you. I'm not sure if your idea is the future or not, but one thing that I do know is that this country was founded on ideas and made into the world leader it is today because of ideas. So I applaud you for that. Where we as a country go next though is far from clear and it will eventually go to the person with hopefull the best idea and the numbers to support it.


----------



## gdstark

AlanB said:


> gdstark said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for which cities, I would say any large urban areas. As with all public transportation concepts, it works less well in urban areas. I appreciate that you and GML are proponents of trains, but you must admit that they can only service a small fraction of commuters since they require the coincidence of stations near both your home and work. I realize they work better for very vertical places like NY, but I would rather NOT see the rest of the world looking like NY. I prefer my skylines. I prefer to live in areas less vulnerable to terrorism. And I prefer less people than that. Just for reference I live in San Jose, just south of San Francisco. Where I live public transportation is a complete failure. The buses drive around empty most of the time and carry only a very small fraction of our commuters. The lightrail is inconvenient to everyone I know. I take bart occasionally, but I have to drive 30 miles just to reach a station first. So clearly San Jose and NY are at opposite ends of the public transportation success scale. And rather than turn San Jose into another NY, I would prefer some other solution to the transportation problem.
> 
> 
> 
> First, any city or town is vulnerable to terrorism and its effects. Small is no guarantee that terrorists won't strike; may I remind you of Lockerbie Scotland?
> 
> Second, while I will admit that NYC is helped by being "vertical" as you call it, that isn't the only reason that our transportation system works here. It's simply because we actually have enough tracks still running trains to really make a difference. San Jose which either had no tracks or pulled out most of its tracks years ago, is now having to basically start all over, with the current light rail system being the first baby step. There are plans for a bigger system, which if realized would bring greater benefit to the city.
> 
> That said, while it may be incovienent to you and people that you know, some 10.3 million people rode that light rail system last year, for an average of almost 33,000 people every weekday.
> 
> As for those empty buses, they moved 31.6 million people last year for an average of 102,000 every weekday.
> 
> And next time you need to get to BART, consider taking Caltrain to reach BART, at least until BART reaches San Jose and it is coming. An average of 2,000 people board a Caltrain train in San Jose each weekday.
> 
> The above isn't intended to knock your idea or to support it, I'm just pointing out a few facts for you. I'm not sure if your idea is the future or not, but one thing that I do know is that this country was founded on ideas and made into the world leader it is today because of ideas. So I applaud you for that. Where we as a country go next though is far from clear and it will eventually go to the person with hopefull the best idea and the numbers to support it.
Click to expand...

Hi Alan,

Points taken. I concede that my evidence for declaring SJ's public transportation system a failure is circumstantial, based on my own experiences and the many empty buses that have cut me off over the years, going all the way back to "dial-a-ride", a hairbrained scheme to send a full sized bus door to door. Given your knowledge of statistics, what percent of the people in SJ use public transportation? While again surcumstantial, I don't know a single person.

As for NY being a terrorist target, obviously terrorists can hit anywhere. But they TEND to prefer crowded places like NYC.

BTW, small vehicles are yet another advantage of the system I propose over subways or trains. If you take out a high speed train, you kill hundreds. If you take out a PRT vehicle, you take out very few people. Unfortunately these are factors we need to consider when designing a transportation system. I dread the day when someone takes out a bullet train.

gary


----------



## AlanB

gdstark said:


> Points taken. I concede that my evidence for declaring SJ's public transportation system a failure is circumstantial, based on my own experiences and the many empty buses that have cut me off over the years, going all the way back to "dial-a-ride", a hairbrained scheme to send a full sized bus door to door. Given your knowledge of statistics, what percent of the people in SJ use public transportation? While again surcumstantial, I don't know a single person.


Gary,

First understand that I don’t think that any transit agency collects ridership statistics that indicate where the rider actually resides. Therefore any numbers that I’m about to provide are undoubtedly skewed by that fact. Most likely NY’s numbers are far more skewed by this factor, since many people ride a commuter railroad first to reach the city, and then transfer to a subway or bus. I’m sure that San Jose has some people coming into San Jose via Amtrak or commuter RR, who then transfer to a bus or light rail train, but I suspect that the number is much lower than NY’s.

Now that said, and assuming that the numbers reported here are correct, then NYC’s subways and buses move about 19.5% of the city’s population each day based upon the numbers that I have access to. If I had to hazard a guess though, I’d say that at least 1% to 1.5% of that number is commuters who live outside the city, and it might even be a higher percentage.

San Jose on the other hand, again based upon the numbers provided, moves about 7.5% of its population each weekday via its buses and light rail trains.



gdstark said:


> BTW, small vehicles are yet another advantage of the system I propose over subways or trains. If you take out a high speed train, you kill hundreds. If you take out a PRT vehicle, you take out very few people. Unfortunately these are factors we need to consider when designing a transportation system. I dread the day when someone takes out a bullet train.


While I won't deny that taking out a train would result in a higher casualty rate by comparison to a PRT, two things occur to me. First, odds are that you won't kill everyone on the train, unlike a plane. Even the bombings in Spain did not result in the deaths of hundreds and they bombed several trains at once.

Second, if all we have are PRT's, then they'll just bomb something else like a shopping mall. If you number is up, then your number is up. It's not going to matter how you got to that mall. So IMHO, I wouldn't be using the terrorist angle as an argument for or against the PRT.


----------



## AlanB

Just as a further comparison, I looked at the numbers for Dallas. First, it is important to note that the Dallas numbers are from 2006, not 2007 as they haven't been published on the DART site or at least I didn't see them. Second, I did not include the numbers from TRE (Trinity Rail Express), even though they are technically part of the greater Dallas transportation picture and organization.

Dallas has a population of almost 6 million more people than San Jose. They have an average ridership of 214,117 per day or their buses and light rail move about 3.5% of the cities population at present. It is important to note however that just five years ago they were only moving about 2% of the population and they continue to expand their lightrail system, with several extensions and a new branch already under construction, and still more planned.


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Frankly, I'm amazed that such a cockamamie idea has generated this amount of discussion.

I'm back to my original response to the posting by MrFSS: Hilarity.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

*sighs*

By occupation, I am an entrepreneur. I come up with ideas and try to make money by working them in such a way that I can sell a product, service, or the idea itself to someone, or some group. I probably come up with 3 score ideas a day, and ditch half of them before I even get to the consideration stage. And I usually kill off about 90% of them before I get around to running the idea by my girlfriend. Why? Because they are either deeply flawed, are not inherently profitable, implausible, against my personal principles, or beyond my ability to capitalize.

About 6 months ago I came up with an idea to create a network of high-speed vacuum tube maglevs that, if implemented, would cut the travel time between any two major cities in the US to about 3 hours. The numbers worked, it would be technologically feasible. It also would have cost approximately a trillion dollars to build the first leg of the network, from New York to Los Angeles. Literal number. Would it be useful? Well, yeah. It could move about 3000 people from New York to LA in one shot, and take an hour and a half to do it.

Is such a system ever going to exist? No way, and definitely not in my lifetime. Its impractical for a capitalistic society to implement a 100-trillion-dollar transportation network like that which would never ever see a return on its investment. By the way, if any of you care to prove me wrong, more power to ya.

Another idea I came up with about 12 years ago was to take all the functions of a car and integrate them into a single video display and control it using a rotary knob-cum-mouse. I scrapped it about 30 seconds later because I came to the conclusion it violated the following: 1) it was implausible, 2) it was deeply flawed, 3) it was against my personal principle of K.I.S.S, and 4) it was beyond my ability to capitalize it. A few years later I saw practically the same idea debut on the 7-series BMW. I can't fathom why somebody would actually implement such an idea, but apparently they did. And I still think its incredibly stupid.

I have also tried to drag the occasional pet idea long past its usefulness. One of them was my convinced belief that people wanted extremely durable goods, and were willing to pay for them. I lost a nice sized hunk of money trying to sell a few items based on that concept for a small profit.

However, I also saw California try to implement their zero-emissions nonsense. I have seen people buy hybrid vehicles, despite the fact that they create more problems than they solve. I have seen people go jumping on the idea of ethanol. And I have had people tell me that my car is obviously inefficient because it has a total fuel capacity of 32 gallons (It can go about 1200 miles on those 32 gallons!)

Imagine a mass transit network that actually met your needs. You have to walk not 30 miles but 2-3 blocks to get to your local mass-transit stop. And that mass-transit system ran at least every 5 minutes during day light, and every 10 during night hours, 24 hours a day. Imagine a transit system that can get you anywhere within your local area within 20 minutes, walking included. That could get you to the hubs of longer distance transportation, as well. Tell me, my friend. Would this not work well enough for your needs?

And just in case, lets charge people for using their cars in densely populated areas. Three cheers to Bloomberg for having the guts to even propose that idea here.


----------



## gdstark

AlanB said:


> San Jose on the other hand, again based upon the numbers provided, moves about 7.5% of its population each weekday via its buses and light rail trains.


Alan, I find the figure of 7.5% really hard to believe. I know a lot of people and the only one who took the bus around town was a homeless niece of mine (sad story). I googled for statistics on SJ and found numbers all over the map, many higher than yours. So I don't know how to explain the descrepancy between my observations and the stats.

I can say this...of the half dozen jobs I've held over the years, there was never a time when public transportation felt practical unless I had a couple of extra hours to kill every day. I suspect SJ is probably worse than many large cities in this respect as it's very spread out.

As I type this, it's pooring rain outside. According to Yahoo weather, it's going to keep doing that for the rest of the month. I'm just glad I don't have to walk to the bus stop to get to work!



> Second, if all we have are PRT's, then they'll just bomb something else like a shopping mall.


Yes, but it's still to our advantage to reduce the total number of possible targets. Plus, I travel often but spend very little time in the mall. 

gary


----------



## gdstark

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Frankly, I'm amazed that such a cockamamie idea has generated this amount of discussion.


It's not just on this forum...energy, climate, and transportation are very hot topics everywhere. And I'm obviously in the camp that thinks what we have is not sustainable and requires rethinking.

gary


----------



## gdstark

Green Maned Lion said:


> I come up with ideas...


Me to! My problem is that my ideas never make money. But that's ok - I do it for my own satisfaction. Here are two others I'm playing with...

www.ExpertVoter.org

www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org

So needless to say I won't be quiting my day job anytime soon.

gary


----------



## WhoozOn1st

gdstark said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I come up with ideas...
> 
> 
> 
> Me to! My problem is that my ideas never make money. But that's ok - I do it for my own satisfaction. Here are two others I'm playing with...
> 
> www.ExpertVoter.org
> 
> www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
> 
> So needless to say I won't be quiting my day job anytime soon.
> 
> gary
Click to expand...

Gary, I have no quibble with ExpertVoter.org, though I do think a complementary site, MoronsShouldNotVote.net, might be in order. 

United Democratic Nations is a different story.

"The goal of the United Democratic Nations is to promote world peace through the process of democracy."

After dropping the obvious lies about WMD and "nuke-U-lar" weapons, that was W's fallback position. We've seen how well it has worked. You can't bludgeon people into democracy.

And why the pic of Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration) clinking glasses with N. Korea's "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il, while omitting a shot of our own less-than-dear leader yukking it up - in costume - with the premier of Red China?







OMG, Dubya's wearing blue!! Secret Democrat? Yeah, right.

Best of luck in all your endeavors, Gary.


----------



## AlanB

gdstark said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> San Jose on the other hand, again based upon the numbers provided, moves about 7.5% of its population each weekday via its buses and light rail trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan, I find the figure of 7.5% really hard to believe. I know a lot of people and the only one who took the bus around town was a homeless niece of mine (sad story). I googled for statistics on SJ and found numbers all over the map, many higher than yours. So I don't know how to explain the descrepancy between my observations and the stats.
Click to expand...

Well I really can't speak to the buses, since I've never been on them, other than to say that a few that I did see were rather full when I was in San Jose. The light rail on the other hand which I just rode from end to end last July was rather well patronized and I was riding in between rush hours, since I started my journey at 9:50 AM and I was off by 4:50 PM. The final run coming back to Diridon from Mountain View, was quite packed though.

Now I'll grant that my one day of riding isn't exactly a fair sampling, but it does seem to agree with the VTA's statistics. And it was based upon those stats, that I arrived at my numbers.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

gdstark said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I come up with ideas...
> 
> 
> 
> Me to! My problem is that my ideas never make money. But that's ok - I do it for my own satisfaction. Here are two others I'm playing with...
> 
> www.ExpertVoter.org
> 
> www.UnitedDemocraticNations.org
> 
> So needless to say I won't be quiting my day job anytime soon.
> 
> gary
Click to expand...

Why Republicans on top? Alphabetical order would place Democrats first, so I'm interested in the ordering. Also, the clips I watched reminded me of the fair and balanced nature of Fox News.

However, your United Democratic Nations amuses me. Democracy, as a concept, violates its own basic principle when it is pushed onto people, especially those unwilling to take it. In the history of the world, the only fully-functional non-parlimentary, full representation democracy to last more than a hundred years is the United States. Every single other example has failed within a century.

Democracy works relatively well in the US, I'll grant you that. The US was founded and based largely on British principles, and Britain was, historically, the most democratic of post-Roman European nations. Democracy fails and crashes most other places within a matter of a few years. Take Italy, which has constantly had trouble since the end of WWII- I read in the New York Times yesterday, after their government failed- again- that they've had 62 governments since the war. I only use Italy as an example because its fresh in my mind.

Britain always had a very strong sense of right, fair, and lawful. The British legal code is the inspiration for most western legal systems, ours included. Britain's system is carefully designed to prevent things like voter fraud, heavily overseen by watchgroups that are passionately against it. The US also has a very very carefully designed system to prevent voter fraud, and the commitment of people within the system to the honesty of it is incredible. In most other countries, however, democracy has a big stumbling block in front of it, and that is the essential honesty, and trusting nature, of the people living within it.

In our country, our military is symbolically tasked with only one thing. To serve, protect, and defend not the president, nor the people, but the Constitution of the United States. Every official in our governments first responsibility is always towards nothing more or less than to the proper upholding of the document on which our government is based. If the document is against the best interests of the people, before the best interests of the people can be served, the document must be amended by a two thirds majority of representatives chosen by those people. This concept is unusual.

In other countries, the respect and belief in the new system of government is never as strong as here. People automatically assume that the government is corrupt, inept, and fraudulent. Power-hungry people take advantage of loopholes in the system, recreate positions in their interest, and change the system to something resembling a dictatorship.

It varies as to whether this dictatorship is good or bad. Some of them are very good. There have been a long line of dictators who have truly had the best interests of their countries and its people in mind, who rule well, restore order, and genuinely do a damned good job. Hugo Chavez, had he been able to get the people to put him into the position he was aiming for, seems to be a good example.

In other countries, such as Sweden, other forms of government work better than American-style democracy ever could. People within the US are generally selfish, and think of themselves first, their family second, and the good of the people around them a very distant third. For that reason, democracy is the best we can do here. In other countries, however, the dedication of its people towards the common good allow for other, more effective, governments to flourish, such as socialism. Socialism, and especially communism, are exceptionally good forms of government when they are properly and honestly implemented. Please don't go into rants about the Soviet Union, because it was not in any way an example of proper communism.

Your problem is that you see things through your eyes, and assume that from what you see, you can implement ideas on an entire range of things you haven't seen. Your PRT project makes sense, given your experience with mass transit. You've never seen a well-run, well-implemented, well-executed mass transit network. Mass transit networks only work given proper implementation- they need to serve a wide variety of destinations from a wide variety of points of origin, with frequent, rapid, and reliable service. If it doesn't, it is only useful to people whose origin and destination are convenient precisely to the system. As a result, usage is limited.

Your experience with California trying to re-create a public transportation network out of nothing in a densely populated area is a massive, difficult, and almost impossible undertaking. New York works because it was never dismantled. It was built as it was needed over the course of about 100 years. They need more service now, so they are building another line currently, to supplement a dozen other lines that criss-cross lower Manhattan very effectively. To build a system as extensive as New Yorks will cost billions of dollars. To assume the concept of Mass Transit can not be the solution because your local system is not yet comprehensive enough to be useful is naive. To assume democracy can work worldwide because it works here is likewise naive.


----------



## gdstark

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Gary, I have no quibble with ExpertVoter.org, though I do think a complementary site, MoronsShouldNotVote.net, might be in order.
> United Democratic Nations is a different story.
> 
> "The goal of the United Democratic Nations is to promote world peace through the process of democracy."
> 
> After dropping the obvious lies about WMD and "nuke-U-lar" weapons, that was W's fallback position. We've seen how well it has worked. You can't bludgeon people into democracy.
> 
> And why the pic of Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration) clinking glasses with N. Korea's "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il, while omitting a shot of our own less-than-dear leader yukking it up - in costume - with the premier of Red China?
> 
> OMG, Dubya's wearing blue!! Secret Democrat? Yeah, right.
> 
> Best of luck in all your endeavors, Gary.


I'll keep to transportation here, but I appreciate your photo of Bush and Jiang Zemin. I added it to the site.

thanks,

gary


----------



## gdstark

Green Maned Lion said:


> Why Republicans on top? Alphabetical order would place Democrats first, so I'm interested in the ordering. Also, the clips I watched reminded me of the fair and balanced nature of Fox News.


Thanks for your feedback on the concepts. For the most part I'm gonna punt since they aren't on transportation, but I will address the ordering issue. When I first created the ExpertVoter website about a year ago, there were more democrats and republicans. So by putting the republicans first, they didn't fill the page and you could still see that there were other parties below. It's no more sinister than that. I'm afraid ordering is always one of those no-win situations. With all the dropouts of late it won't be long before all are back on the same screen anyway.

As for your fox bias charge, nearly all of the videos were CHOSEN by the candidates (see the yellow tabs). So that point is baseless.



> Your problem is that you see things through your eyes, and assume that from what you see, you can implement ideas on an entire range of things you haven't seen.


I plead guilty.

gary


----------



## WhoozOn1st

Gary says "I'll keep to transportation here."

But transportation is inherently political. For those who may not agree, consider a current administration that has repeatedly gone out of its way to try to kill Amtrak. That's politics, and the welcome failure to exterminate Amtrak is a result of politics as well.

Here in the forum, there was a recent suggestion to begin a subtopic devoted to politics. I didn't think it was a good idea because I was concerned that - especially in an election year - it could quickly degenerate.

However, politics remains crucial to the overall transportation discussion. Who or what is gonna go where? How will they/it get there? Whooz gonna pay for it? Political issues.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> Whooz gonna pay for it?


Somehow I doubt it.


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

I see standard driver less cars being the more economical option and would be integrated along with cars with drivers in the way that digital TV is currently replacing analog TV in that it is adopted over time and at some point made mandatory. From the plans I've seen cars would be entirely computer controlled using GPS, lasers, sensors etc to determine location of itself and other objects. Cars could merge at full speeds of 70 and 80, go through perpendicular intersections at the same speed all while being less than a foot apart, during high speed maneuver the windows would blackout to protect the riders from stress.

Here is a link of GM's concept car:



As you've probably seen some luxury cars already include warning systems, emergency braking systems and automatic parking.


----------



## gdstark

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> I see standard driver less cars being the more economical option and would be integrated along with cars with drivers in the way that digital TV is currently replacing analog TV in that it is adopted over time and at some point made mandatory. From the plans I've seen cars would be entirely computer controlled using GPS, lasers, sensors etc to determine location of itself and other objects. Cars could merge at full speeds of 70 and 80, go through perpendicular intersections at the same speed all while being less than a foot apart, during high speed maneuver the windows would blackout to protect the riders from stress.
> Here is a link of GM's concept car:



I certainly can't imaging a future where transportation is NOT fully automated for all the advantages you mention and more. But removing the unpredictible and inneficient element of human drivers would also be needed to truly fine tune the system.

gary

www.PRTProject.com


----------



## Green Maned Lion

For my part, I don't WANT it automated. Now, I admit here my favourite car is a Morgan Plus 4, but I still imagine a lot of people wouldn't want to lose control of their own car.

/Digression

Morgan Motor Company is a small British firm that makes sports cars. They make two models, the 4/4-Plus 4-Roadster, and the Aero 8. The Aero 8 is a fairly modern car with aluminum space frame and high-tech wood composite construction powered by a BMW V8. The other car (Plus 4, 4/4, and Roadster) is something entirely different, a car that has been in production more or less unaltered except for small updates, since 1936. It is hand-built with a cruciform steel chassis, wood frame, and hand beaten aluminum body panels. They are relatively inexpensive for what they are (about £35k, currently $73k or so), and are custom made for each owner. They build about 600 of them a year.

/End Digression

Naturally, a computer controlled car could maximize the fuel economy of a given vehicle. It could take turns faster, thus reducing acceleration fuel burn, they could do a better job of maintaining a constant speed, and could operate in denser conditions with less slow downs and fuel wasting situations. But the fact of the matter is, a car is, by definition, an inefficient transportation device.

Let us compare the economy, per person, of two cars, to give a pretty eye opening example.

The Smart car is a fantastically innovative car, a tiny little demonstration of how efficiently designed a car can be. It is one of the poster children of the so called Greens. It is, without question, the most fuel efficient gas car sold in this country. It gets a combined fuel economy of about 42MPG.

The Ford E350 is an antique. Its basic design appeared in the late 70s. Its been cosmetically upgraded several times since, but not mechanically, or platformally. It is powered by an all cast iron, turbocharged 32-valve DOHC 6.0-litre V8 diesel. With this, its most economical engine, it gets about 10mpg carrying its full compliment of passengers.

The Smart is a less efficient hauler of people. A Smart can carry two people, giving it a maximum fuel economy of 84 passenger miles per gallon. The Ford, however, can carry FIFTEEN passengers. Giving it a maximum fuel economy of 150 passenger miles per gallon.

But let me blow you out even farther here. Mercedes/Dodge/Freightliner offer a van called the Sprinter. This van offers fuel economy of 25 mpg fully loaded. And it can carry 10 passengers. Which means it gets an economy of 250 passenger miles per gallon.

The future of transportation dictates that the more efficient form of transportation will win. And if you, Mr. Stark, believe nobody rides these methods when they are PROPERLY implemented, then I suggest you go to Newark Penn Station around 3:30 PM on a weekday. Go up to the Track 3&4 platform, and go halfway up the PATH ramp. Now watch the number of people riding these trains, and their frequency, until around 7:00. Then tell me they don't work.

Edit: Word of Caution: when on that ramp, stand off to one side. Press yourself against the railing when PATH trains arrive. Otherwise you'll be trampled as about 400 people come running and stampeding down it.


----------



## gdstark

Green Maned Lion said:


> For my part, I don't WANT it automated. Now, I admit here my favourite car is a Morgan Plus 4, but I still imagine a lot of people wouldn't want to lose control of their own car.
> /Digression
> 
> Morgan Motor Company is a small British firm that makes sports cars. They make two models, the 4/4-Plus 4-Roadster, and the Aero 8. The Aero 8 is a fairly modern car with aluminum space frame and high-tech wood composite construction powered by a BMW V8. The other car (Plus 4, 4/4, and Roadster) is something entirely different, a car that has been in production more or less unaltered except for small updates, since 1936. It is hand-built with a cruciform steel chassis, wood frame, and hand beaten aluminum body panels. They are relatively inexpensive for what they are (about £35k, currently $73k or so), and are custom made for each owner. They build about 600 of them a year.
> 
> /End Digression
> 
> Naturally, a computer controlled car could maximize the fuel economy of a given vehicle. It could take turns faster, thus reducing acceleration fuel burn, they could do a better job of maintaining a constant speed, and could operate in denser conditions with less slow downs and fuel wasting situations. But the fact of the matter is, a car is, by definition, an inefficient transportation device.
> 
> Let us compare the economy, per person, of two cars, to give a pretty eye opening example.
> 
> The Smart car is a fantastically innovative car, a tiny little demonstration of how efficiently designed a car can be. It is one of the poster children of the so called Greens. It is, without question, the most fuel efficient gas car sold in this country. It gets a combined fuel economy of about 42MPG.
> 
> The Ford E350 is an antique. Its basic design appeared in the late 70s. Its been cosmetically upgraded several times since, but not mechanically, or platformally. It is powered by an all cast iron, turbocharged 32-valve DOHC 6.0-litre V8 diesel. With this, its most economical engine, it gets about 10mpg carrying its full compliment of passengers.
> 
> The Smart is a less efficient hauler of people. A Smart can carry two people, giving it a maximum fuel economy of 84 passenger miles per gallon. The Ford, however, can carry FIFTEEN passengers. Giving it a maximum fuel economy of 150 passenger miles per gallon.
> 
> But let me blow you out even farther here. Mercedes/Dodge/Freightliner offer a van called the Sprinter. This van offers fuel economy of 25 mpg fully loaded. And it can carry 10 passengers. Which means it gets an economy of 250 passenger miles per gallon.
> 
> The future of transportation dictates that the more efficient form of transportation will win. And if you, Mr. Stark, believe nobody rides these methods when they are PROPERLY implemented, then I suggest you go to Newark Penn Station around 3:30 PM on a weekday. Go up to the Track 3&4 platform, and go halfway up the PATH ramp. Now watch the number of people riding these trains, and their frequency, until around 7:00. Then tell me they don't work.
> 
> Edit: Word of Caution: when on that ramp, stand off to one side. Press yourself against the railing when PATH trains arrive. Otherwise you'll be trampled as about 400 people come running and stampeding down it.


I don't think we ever resolved our earlier discussions. It would really help if we could cut through the trivia and resolve a few basics first. To that end I have a very simple question for you...

Question: Will the majority of humans still be using steering wheels and gas pedals to control vehicles in 500 years?

Please, just a simple yes or no, without the digression. It will help me understand your basic thinking on future transportation.

gary


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Humanity will become extinct because people like you wanted to maintain your "independence" at the expense of the world and its inhabitants as a whole. Americans in general, have demonstrated, clearly, that they'd rather have convenience and comfort than solutions. My own father, for chrissake, tells me he wants a fuel efficient car. GREAT! But not that one, that one, that one, this one, or that one over there. Well, they are too light. Lightness is a key to personal transportation being fuel efficient.

People don't want to help the environment. Not at their own expense, anyway. They just want to think they are. Thats all. And pay less out of pocket. If some preposterous tomfoolery like this PRT project of yours becomes real, I am going to bury myself on an island somewhere.


----------



## gdstark

Green Maned Lion said:


> Humanity will become extinct because people like you wanted to maintain your "independence" at the expense of the world and its inhabitants as a whole. Americans in general, have demonstrated, clearly, that they'd rather have convenience and comfort than solutions. My own father, for chrissake, tells me he wants a fuel efficient car. GREAT! But not that one, that one, that one, this one, or that one over there. Well, they are too light. Lightness is a key to personal transportation being fuel efficient.
> People don't want to help the environment. Not at their own expense, anyway. They just want to think they are. Thats all. And pay less out of pocket. If some preposterous tomfoolery like this PRT project of yours becomes real, I am going to bury myself on an island somewhere.


So you resort to name calling, but are unwilling to answer the question. Having an intelligent, unemotional conversation on the subject apparently isn't going to happen. I would say you've answered the question.

gary


----------



## MrFSS

Friends - if you can't play nicely, I will lock this one down.


----------

