CyberTran: Ultra-light rail for cities and suburbs

Public transit that would work in Houston

Posted by Gar Lipow (Guest Contributor) at 8:55 AM on 14 Nov 2006

No, mass transit is not just for cities like Boston, New York, and Washington D.C. CyberTran^[1] is a form of mass transit suitable for most parts of the nation, from suburbs to the densest parts of Manhattan. It is not so much a new system as an overlooked one. The advantages:

It offers 24-hour availability.
Your journey time is about the same as in a car.
Your rail-car is ready when you are.
You never need to stand.
Stops are near your home and your final destination.
You can read the paper during your trip.

No magic is involved.

CyberTran ultralight rail uses small cars carrying 20 passengers. (The same-sized cars could be configured to hold anywhere from six to 30 riders.) Small, light cars run on cheaper tracks. The total capital cost of a CyberTran urban system (including rail and guideways) is about a tenth or less the cost per passenger mile of conventional light rail^[2]. That is important -- capital costs dominate rail expenses.

CyberTran is an automated, driverless system. (With so many tiny cars, it has to be.) Outside of rush hour, it would be an on-demand system, calculating routes on the fly. During rush hour in dense urban areas, a series of CT cars following one another closely would mimic a conventional multi-car train with fixed schedules. Regardless, you would never have to wait more than five minutes or so for a car -- usually less.

In-system transfers should take even less time, because when you bought a ticket, the system would know you needed to transfer and when. And because of the high degree of computerization (each car would have an on-board computer, plus the system would have a bank of central computers), routing would be optimized. Transfers would be avoided when possible; when transfers were needed, the routes would still be direct enough. You would never go around Robin Hood's barn to get to your destination.

Given the small numbers of passengers per car (and the fact that stops would be made at offline sidings, without blocking the main track), travel would also be optimized to minimize the number of stops. That is, passengers would be sorted onto cars by destination. Sometimes this would result in virtual expresses with few or no stops between a passenger and her destination. Rush hour might not always allow this, but at minimum the number of stops made would be reduced. You would never have to stop at every, or almost every, station.

There will be a lot of stations available. Stops are offline from main guideways -- one CT car stopping does not delay others. CT stations can be as frequent as bus stops.

Because of automation, you can afford more surplus cars, since unused capacity is parked, not rolling, not consuming labor or energy. You can also afford not to fill the cars.

In most cases you will have a stop within easy walking distance of both ends of your journey. In addition, even major stops don't have to be major multi-acre lots like the BART Park 'n' Rides in San Francisco. Park 'n' Rides can consist of many small parking lots, not giant branches of the night auto supply. If you live in a nightmarish suburban development, with acre after acre of housing and no shops or suitable areas for a transit stop within walking distance, you will still find a (comparatively) small, pleasant CT stop with parking a short drive from your home.

CyberTran is not designed for people to stand in the aisles. As mentioned, the cost is about 10% that of conventional rail, and most of that is in guideways, not the cars. Cars won't need to be overloaded during peak hours to pay for off-peak travel. You are guaranteed a seat. You only stand if you want to stretch your legs -- an option you don't have driving.

You have the comfort of a car, probably more, and unlike buses, every car is fully wheelchair and disabled accessible. There is plenty of room for luggage -- more carry-on baggage space than pre-deregulation planes. (Depending on local policy, they may easily be designed to accommodate baby carriages and bicycles as well.)

It is safer than auto travel, with a lower probability of accidents, better crash resistance, and built-in airbags.

CT is better than normal transit in terms of protection from both crime and harassment. Unlike normal transit, it provides a low penalty in convenience for following human instinct in choosing transit companion. A CyberTran car is divided into compartments of between two and five seats each. So upon entering, you can avoid compartments with anyone you feel uncomfortable with, or wait a few minutes and order a new train if the whole car feels wrong.

There are special security features; every seat has a phone that connects directly to security. There are pull cords like those in old trolleys that automatically override all programming and pull to nearest secure destination, notifying security. Since you can tell which cord was pulled and there are not many passengers to a compartment, identifying anyone responsible for "prank" stops or false alarms should be possible in almost all cases.

U.S. city and commuter buses get fewer passenger miles per gallon than cars or even light trucks/SUVs^[3]. Vehicles burn a lot more fuel stopping and starting than traveling. Buses have to deal with normal stop-and-go traffic and all the stops to pick up and drop off passengers. If they were fully loaded all the time, that might make up for it. But according to DOT, even with standing-room-only during peak periods, city and commuter buses on average carry only nine passengers. Buses do reduce congestion, but not by much. One bus replaces many cars that would otherwise be on the road, but buses turning and changing lanes in city traffic and especially buses at stops cause congestion as well.

Most city and commuter buses are miserable to ride. Bus trips take longer than car trips to the same destination; further, trip time can be unpredictable. Passengers breathe fumes, often have to stand, and depending on the route, may suffer harassment while traveling. Buses also perform an essential function. In the U.S., city and commuter buses are the only means by which poor people or people who can't drive can get around inexpensively. (Very few U.S. cities are exceptions.)

To replace buses with a form of transit that is less expensive, more convenient, and more comfortable would be a kindness to city and commuter bus riders, and to the cars that currently share the streets with them. Replace the busiest, most crowded bus routes with CyberTran first, then the next, and so on until you replace all routes with three or more runs daily. Put a transit stop at every former bus stop on these routes. Bus riders will be much better off, and the streets will be less crowded and congested.

Ridership won't be limited to former bus riders. A lot of people will decide it is better to read a paper or nap on new generation transit than to spend the same or more time stuck in traffic in a commute. Many will decide it is better not to fight traffic and parking when visiting friends and relations, or eating (and especially drinking) out. Given accommodations for luggage and packages, some may even use it for shopping.

And that will lead to demand for transit on other routes. Transit routes will become selling points in real estate. Developers will build along them, and demand them near existing tracts. In short, you will get the same kind of feedback cycle that currently leads to more auto use. CyberTran runs about 30 cents per passenger mile (cheaper than auto transportation) in a system with 10,000 users or over -- something achievable in fairly low-density areas. (In other words, if 25,000 people live within 10 miles of you, your area could support a CT system. In short, it is practical wherever population density, living and working combined, exceeds 81 people per square mile -- something true for most people in the U.S.)

While super-light rail is not quite door to door, there is no reason everyone can't have it near their home -- anywhere a bus stop could go. Unlike conventional light rail, super-light rail does not require high-density development. Although it will fit quite nicely into new urbanism, or even old urbanism, it also will work well in suburbs.

So how ecologically beneficent is CyberTran? Energy savings are substantial; depending on electricity source (and thus thermal conversion and transmission losses) it would get between 119 and 264 passenger MPG^[4]. Because CyberTran consumes less land per passenger mile, disturbs the land less than highways or even conventional light rail, and gets much higher utilization out of its vehicles, we can also expect infrastructure savings of close to 90% compared to an automobile-based system^[5]. There is even a high-speed version that can reach speeds of 150 mph and replace airplanes for trips under 400 miles (I'd say more).

CyberTran is just one of a whole class of trains known as ultralight rail. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) systems offer the same benefits, but trade higher costs for greater convenience. Basically they use smaller cars, and thus operate more like automated taxis than trains. Their advantages are, you never have to share a ride with anyone but your traveling companions, and you always go direct to destination with no (instead of few) stops. The disadvantage is that smaller cars mean more motors and generally higher costs per seat. In addition, CyberTran makes more use of standard rail technology than PRT systems. It is less bleeding edge. There are fewer new technologies to go wrong.

Here is the link to CyberTran and to various PRT systems:

Cybertran
ULTra
SkyWeb Express (formerly Auto Tax2000, formerly PRT2000)
Austrans
CabinTaxi PRT System

-----

References

[1] John A. Dearien, Struthers Richard D., and Kent D. McCarthy, CyberTran: A Systems Analysis Solution to the High Cost and Low Passenger Appeal of Conventional Rail Transportation Systems. Nov 2001, CyberTran International, Inc, 22/Jun/2004. PDF Link

[2] Ibid 1 P.5 (Note the cost per seat in examples given is five to ten times less. But once you include greater utilization from computation, one tenth the cost becomes a conservative estimate.)

[3] Stacey C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, TRANSPORTATION ENERGY DATA BOOK: - Edition 22, ORNL-6967 (Edition 22 of ORNL-5198). Sep 2002. Center for Transportation Analysis Science and Technology Division of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. DOE, 23/Sep/2005 PDF Link.

Table 2.11 Passenger Travel and Energy Use in the United States, 2000

[4] John A. Dearien (Junior), "Ultralight Rail and Energy Use," in Encyclopedia of Energy, ed. Cutler J. Cleveland (Elsevier Publishing, March 2004), 255-66.

The calculation is based on Dearien's estimate of .106 passenger miles per gallon. If the electricity is generated via renewable energy and transmitted through the grid, line losses might be as high as 20%. Converting that to gasoline equivalent gives the higher figure. In our current grid, line losses generally result in about 36 units of energy delivered for every BTU of heat consumed. This is due to both thermal and transmission losses. That results in the lower figure. If solar energy was generated along the guideway (as CyberTran is seriously considering), you would have no thermal losses and virtually no transmission losses. In that case the MPG equivalent figure would be around 330 MPG.

[5] Dylan Saloner and Neil Garcia-Sinclair, "Environmental Impact of Ultra Light Rail Transit: Lessening the External Costs of Transportation," Alameda, California, 9/October 2006. p5,pp 20-21 - Unpublished.

Poll

Votes: 145
Results

For story: CyberTran: Ultra-light rail for cities and suburbs
29 Comments | Post a Comment

This makes way too much sense

I think we should focus instead on powering our individual SUVs with corn-based ethanol.

Seriously, this needs to happen now. Gar, how much would it cost to set up ultra-light rail in a mid-sized city (eg, Austin, Tx.)

Victual Reality

by Tom Philpott at 9:16 AM on 14 Nov 2006

Excellent

This is amazing, Gar, but (though it may sound churlish to say so after 2000 words) I feel like you left out half the story. Namely: where is this in development? Who's developing it? Are there any towns or cities signed on to try it yet? Where does it stand in the real world? I want to know whether I should be excited or whether this is just another great idea Americans are resolutely ignoring.

Perhaps a follow-up post ...?

grist.org

by David Roberts at 10:09 AM on 14 Nov 2006

Operating characteristics

I'm a member of ATRA, an association of engineers and policy types advocating wider adoption of automated transit technology, including new technologies.

This article seems to make much of the privacy/personal safety aspects of proposed small-vehicle mass transit. However, it would be incorrect to assume that such considerations are a reason behind Group Rapid Transit systems like CyberTran as well as PRT.

Rather, privacy or group selection is a byproduct of GRT and PRT operating characteristics. When a vehicle has fewer seats, it increases the odds that you will be riding by yourself. The odds increase when you add on-demand service that is direct-to-destination--the chances are usually very small that another person is going to need to go from the same station A to the same station B at exactly the same time as you.

To sum up: you will ride by yourself or with few strangers on GRT and PRT because it is more efficient, not because it is thought people are anti-social.

------- Hey, you got your talking points on my peanut butter...

by MrGrant at 10:15 AM on 14 Nov 2006

David beat me to the punch...

Hello...Mr. Gar? Where's the real info? You leave the reader wondering if this is a scam. It all sounds just too fabulous. Do you work for CyberTran or something?

by swampthing at 10:33 AM on 14 Nov 2006
[ Parent ]

concerns

The link to reference #1 is broken. Try this one: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/6000/6600/6647/ctpaper.pdf

The status of CyberTran is similar to other PRT proposals: It is seeking investment funds to construct a test track.

Automated transit systems are working quite well in numerous airports around the world. However, difficulties arise when transferring the concept to urban environments. Because the system is automated, guideways must be completely separated from surface traffic and intersections -- in other words, elevated or underground. Elevated tracks are less costly, but still have expensive ancillary requirements in the form of elevated stations and elevator access.

Outside of the controlled airport context, automated systems are likely to have higher costs from littering and vandalism. Computer controlled vehicles and routing, with large numbers of vehicles and extremely short headways, are unproven on the neighborhood or municipal scale. Government safety rules may require much heavier vehicles and infrastructure, thus decreasing some of the cost advantage. Also, many people object to the aesthetic/economic impacts of installing elevated guideways throughout a city.

These are some of the concerns that have slowed investment in automated transit systems to date.

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 10:49 AM on 14 Nov 2006

Re: Cybertran costs

You would need to contact Cybertran.

If you go to their website

cybertran.com wait for their silly flash based menu to load, select the really dark email icon that is hard to tell means contact, and you will get to the page with contact numbers and e-mail. You would have to provide them some numbers. What you might do is contact your Austin city bus company. See if you can get the lengths of their routes from them, trips per day on each route and number of stops.

If you want to calculate it yourself, to $15,000 per seat. A quick look on line gives us the figures to use the latter method:

You have ~42,000 riders daily who average 2.7 trips (including transfers and people who get rides one way I would guess.) So seats needed at 100 utilization (which will never get is 21,000. (Cause with CyberTran, we don't need no stinkin tranfers.) But of course 40% is a more reasonable utilization (much higher than a conventional system, but we have on demand routes computed on the fly.) So 52,000 seats is more reasonable to handle peak ridership. So capital costs are more like 788 million dollars. Amortized over 20 years at 5% interest, this will cost you around $63.2 million per year. Add 10% for operating expenses (remember capital costs represent 90% of the dollars in running this railroad) and your price comes to well under $70 million per year.

Operating expenses for CapMet in 2006 were budgeted at $142.3 million. Depreciation and amortization were budgeted to run another $23 million.

This is an immense savings, but it is also a super-rough estimate. Also I'm adding in Van-pool costs and such. If you separated out expenses for fixed route buses and trolleys only, you would probably end up with a cost closer to the CyberTran estimate.

by Gar Lipow at 11:00 AM on 14 Nov 2006
[ Parent ]

CyberTran Status

Yes, as you say this is seeking a first real life installation. It has been through a number of test runs. Because of the lightness not just of the car, but the tracks, elevation is very cheap.

But automated systems are no longer experimental. BART has been driverless since 1972.

It has been extensively run on test beds over a two year period. It is being ignored for the usual chicken egg reasons; no one wants to be the first to try something new. Also Federal rail funds specifically have a provision excluding their use for experimental systems.

And to the person who asked me, I have no financial relationship with CyberTran.

by Gar Lipow at 11:09 AM on 14 Nov 2006

Just another great idea Americans are ignoring

by Gar Lipow at 11:13 AM on 14 Nov 2006
[ Parent ]

CyberTran costs

The article suggests that the CyberTran infrastructure costs will be in the area of 10% of a comparable conventional rail systems. Since LRT systems today range from about US$ 20 million per km to US$ 40 million per km, that would imply CyberTran is only US$ 2 million to US$ 4 million per km.

Even more boldly the article goes on to say: "To replace buses with a form of transit that is less expensive, more convenient, and more comfortable would be a kindness to city and commuter bus riders, and to the cars that currently share the streets with them."

If CyberTran is less expensive than bus system, then it would have to be less than US$ 1 million per km.

These statements are very difficult to believe. An automated system such as CyberTran will have to be grade-separated (elevated or underground). An automated surface-level system would create safety problems for pedestrians and other vehicles.

The lowest cost grade-separated system in the world right now is the Kuala Lumpur monorail and it costs in the range of US$ 25 million to US$ 30 million per km.

I hope the numbers implied in the article are correct since it would be quite an impressive accomplishment. On the other hand, making outlandish claims merely to gain investors will ultimately harm the project's credibility. One should be careful in not being too reckless with the possible costs.

by Lloyd Wright at 11:17 AM on 14 Nov 2006

Driverless?

I could swear that every BART train I've ever been on has a driver calling out the stops, waiting until everyone has boarded to close the doors and move forward, etc.

As other posters have said, driverless trains are viable in contain areas (e.g. airports) and otherwise in urban areas they need to be grade-separated. The idea of ANY grade-separated system being infrastructure-cost-competitive with bus lines is hard for me to believe.

by geosynchronous at 11:45 AM on 14 Nov 2006

whats wrong with roads?

In the initial stages of this system, wouldn't the system resemble a train? Because there wouldn't be a lot of stops, right? Also: How is it that you would never be required to stop? If the car in front of you has decided to stop, you'll need to stop as well, right? I guess there could be multiple lanes and traffic and all that, but at some point wont this system of tracks closely parallel our system of roads? This is not as convenient as a car. Are the tracks easier to maintain than roads, even when it snows? Is the main advantage that you don't have to drive? If so, why not alter our existing roads enough to have driver less cabs on it? If the issue is that normal cars pollute too much, why not tax that pollution? If the issue is congestion, raise fees or increase capacity. I don't think that the problem with cars and commuting is the roads.

by ac5p at 12:20 PM on 14 Nov 2006

experimental automated transit

Gar: You say automated systems are no longer experimental -- which is true if you are considering airport-type systems only. They go in a straight line or a simple loop, and they have headways of 1-5 minutes.

I repeat, computer controlled vehicles and routing, with large numbers of vehicles and extremely short headways, are unproven on the neighborhood or municipal scale. CyberTran and similar systems propose to operate on complex, interconnected networks of tracks, not simple straight lines or isolated loops. CyberTran and similar systems propose to operate vehicles just a few feet or yards apart, with headways of a few seconds or fractions of seconds. Systems like that are unproven. That's why it's hard to find first adopters.

As for BART, DC Metro and similar metropolitan-scale computer-assisted systems -- the computers have been known to fail on numerous occasions. That's why human backup is always required.

To ac5p: I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but we are facing shortages of fuel for our cars. Some people say we are facing shortfalls now, some people say it will be later. But even optimists say it'll happen within our lifetime, 30-40 years. The U.S. Energy Secretary summed it up quite well:

If we look two or three or four decades into the future, we know that hydrocarbons alone will not meet the needs of a growing world economy. Even with all the technical expertise the world could offer and all the political will it could muster, eventually, we will run out of oil. And, even before then, the price of a dwindling supply will be prohibitive. At present, our world is overly focused on, and overly dependent upon, one source of energy. And that path is unsustainable.

Ped Shed Blog

by Laurence Aurbach at 1:59 PM on 14 Nov 2006

Stops

>Also: How is it that you would never be required to stop? If the car in front of you has decided to stop, you'll need to stop as well, right?

No, that is one of the points! Because of light track and light cars, switches are only ~$6,000. So every stop is offline on a siding! Your train only has to stop at a stop where someone is exiting or entering. Not at a stop where some other train is letting someone off!

>The lowest cost grade-separated system in the world right now is the Kuala Lumpur monorail and it costs in the range of US$ 25 million to US$ 30 million per km.

The estimate for CyberTran is $4 million per mile, which is ~2.5 million per kilometer. The reason it is so much cheaper is that with lighter cars you use much lighter rail. No cross ties, and the steel is such a light grade. A muscular man can pick up a three meter length of it in one hand. (Try that with conventional railway ties.) That means elevation is very close in cost to running it on the ground. Much of the cost of rail is leveling and site preparation. Because of the lower weight, you normally don't have to level or grade the sites the elevated rail runs on.

And no, you do NOT have to get down to 1 million per kilometer to compete with most (highly inefficient) U.S. bus systems.

For example in the Austin example I gave, routes in Austin total around 210 miles. At 4 million per mile, this is around an 820 million dollar capital cost. (And yes, the 4 million per mile is for both ways, not a one way trip.)

by Gar Lipow at 2:04 PM on 14 Nov 2006

a raspberry & a wet blanket

"I hear those things are awfully loud..." Nonsense! It glides as softly as a cloud.

Seriously, though, PRT (not to be confused with driverless transit, which works well in, say, Vancouver) has never progressed beyond the pipe dream stage, despite literally billions of dollars of tax dollars thrown at it from all kinds of directions (usually from government). What has changed this time? Who calculated these cost estimates? The same people who claim that monorails cost 50% less, since they have just one rail?

The cheapest, most sustainable way of getting around is walking, which, incidentally, is also good for you and often fun. Instead of waiting for some pie in the sky technological fix, we could just build our cities around walking, a solution that existed before we ever realized that we had a "congestion problem."

BTW, I voted "no." Simple logic dictates that, in a dense urban area with very high peak hour flows, individuals occupying large amounts of personal space will result in congestion. It does on today's highway system and on today's transit system, and it would on any PRT system as well.

by Payton Chung at 9:44 PM on 14 Nov 2006

The wonders of simple common sense

I note you make no analysis - just "simple common sense". The same "simple common sense" that leads people to believe humans are too small and insignificant to be major contributors to global warming. Sure, tear down all our existing cities, and rebuild them from scratch. That will be a lot easier than adding light rail. In terms of the accuracy of the figures - they are available in the papers I linked. Double check them.

by Gar Lipow at 8:09 AM on 15 Nov 2006

Taxi! Taxi!

In 1993, King County here in Washington held public debates on their proposed mass transit systems.

Metro, the regional transit agency, offered three plans, all involving some mix of busways and rail. They did not come up with these plans proactivity, but were pressed by voters, hoping for a miracle solution.

There was a 3 Billion dollar plan, a 6 billion dollar plan and an 11 billion dollar plan. When pressed, they said at the meeting that the 3B and 6B plans would alleviate traffic by -- zero percent. And the 11B plan would alliviate traffic from 0 to 3 percent, at best.

Hmm...the problem here is that there is no area dense enough to support mass transit.

I proposed to them a different idea: make taxi service cheaper and more computerized. I would basically take all the software of CyberTrans, but not build any of the hardware and instead use existing roadways and high milage vehicles. The cost of the taxis would be subsidized at the same rates as the "mass" projects. It would provide numerous jobs for drivers. The computer systems would optimize the taxis to allow multiple pickups without delaying people by more than a few minutes.

People who don't want cars would not have to have them. It would reduce cars for commuters by at least 1/3rd (three people per car, plus driver, assuming we didn't use Suburbans or minivans).

by jabailo at 4:19 PM on 15 Nov 2006

not common sense

but "logic." No PRT system I've ever examined has been able to get around the problem of moving very large passenger flows -- like, say, rush hour loads in many cities -- without gumming up into exactly the same congestion that plagues the existing Personal Transit network (the roads). (Roads in many cities are already heavily technologically managed, thanks to techniques from metered ramps to variable tolling.) Moving and storing enough vehicles to move 10,000 people into a downtown within an hour (a reasonable capacity for light rail) is no easy feat.

Even ULTra PRT's spokespeople don't make such a claim.

On principle, I very, very seriously doubt any single solution, particularly any technological solution like PRT, that claims to be a panacea. Everything has a downside, and PRT is by no means an exception to that rule.

by Payton Chung at 12:05 AM on 16 Nov 2006

The emptier the cars

It seems to me that the emptier the cars, the higher the cost per passenger mile.

So, if people often ride alone, how cheap can it be?

If the cars and rail are so light, what happens during a heavy wind?

The claim that bus riders often suffer harrassment (and the suggestion that cyber train riders somehow won't) is specious at best. This should be obvious.

The big problem, even if all the other claims are true, is where will you lay the tracks? The sheer amount of land required to replicate bus service is tremendous, and seems to make this a non-starter for existing cities.

patrick

by bookerly at 1:14 AM on 16 Nov 2006

ULTra

ULTra from ATS (link at bottom of the article) now has an order for a track at Heathrow airport's new Terminal 5.

I think they have a far better solution because you get your own personal vehicle so you choose where you go. This differentiates it from the CyberTran system in that you don't have to wait for other people or be sorted into groups and put on one train. Essentially it's somewhere between a taxi and a bus - you get your own vehicle which takes you almost all of the way to your destination by the most direct route. It also removes the harrassment problem suggested above.

Check out the ULTra website. It's got some video simulations and a lot more background information. CyberTran isn't the only game in town people!

by scatter at 2:41 AM on 16 Nov 2006

Safety

Here, as in many parts of the developing world, travelling alone means you're more vulnerable to criminal attack. People on trains in South Africa will often seek out the most-full cars to have some 'backup' in case the gangsters strike.

Think about it...

Cheers

Whiskerfish

by Whiskerfish at 4:03 AM on 16 Nov 2006

Riding alone

You do NOT ride alone in CyberTran. They hold up to twenty people and will average 40% full. However if you get an uncomfortable feel, the time penalty for waiting for another train is low.

That not an insignificant problem. I ride public transit. You get teenangers who like shout insults at the rest of the passenger. You can end with the only seat being next to a mumbling drunk. I'm not a women, but many of my friends tell me that sexual harrassment is sometimes a problem on transit as well. I've also had my pocket picked on a standing room only bus. Being able to skip a train that looks like your experience will be miserable is not a small problem.

And not CyberTran is not the only solution out there. I linked to PRT. PRT is more expensive though, because you are multiplying cars and motors. Most of the proposals also use rubber tires, which reduces energy efficiency a bit.

And in terms of still having congestion - with no on-line stops, and all the vehicles moving at the same speed you can get very crowed indeed without congestion or slowing. It is an advantage of computer control. (It better not run on Windows though.) That is the experimental part, and is a reason it does need testing in a real world case, before considering widespread deployment. I think what we really need is a beta test program for CyberTran, and the PRT systems too. Fund one small system in each of a number of small towns. System maker to supply the system on a turnkey basis. Fixed price (no overruns). No progress payments, payment only after delivery, passing of all tests, and successful operation for a month.

And of course it is not a panacea. It is not door-to-door. You still have to get from your home to the CyberTran stop, and from the CyberTran stop to your desitination.

by Gar Lipow at 9:33 AM on 16 Nov 2006

not common sense?

One cannot really comment on your evaluation of PRT rush hour load without knowing your base assumptions, e.g. PRT fleet size, avg trip length, numbers of berths per station, avg. dwell time, etc.

Furthermore, I am 99.999% sure that no first-stage PRT implementation will be given the theoretical burden you pose. I hope PRT is allowed to grow into high capacity as the technology is refined, rather than being set up to fail.

Indeed, the serious PRT companies, engineering consultants, advocacy groups, and governments like the EU and Swedes are at present proposing PRT for niche applications such as airport shuttles and collector-feeders to train stations.

------- Hey, you got your talking points on my peanut butter...

by MrGrant at 12:33 PM on 17 Nov 2006
[ Parent ]

Thinking

Have thought about it. There are two locations a rider is vulnerable:

a. at the station. Train: You have to wait for the scheduled train; at night you may have to wait a while, and during that time you are vulnerable. PRT: on-demand travel, so you board immediately or almost immediately. This applies to everyone, so people loitering in the station late at night is suspicious. PRT station would be remotely monitored to discourage crime.

b. in the vehicle. Train: you have noted the dynamics. PRT: persons boarding would be alone or in a party of acquaintances traveling together. Once in motion there is no opportunity for others to board and make trouble.

Is there another situation you can think of?

------- Hey, you got your talking points on my peanut butter...

by MrGrant at 12:40 PM on 17 Nov 2006
[ Parent ]

Incovenience not danger

In spite of the reputation it sometimes has serious crime is generally not a crime on public transit. Murders, armed robbery, rape and such are comparatively rare. Also when it comes to real danger, public transit has a much better record than automobiles. So add that in, and you are much safer on transit than in car.

Public transit suffers in three ways in comparison to automobiles. One is the inconvenience that it is generally a slower way to get where you are going than automobile. (DOT statistics confirm that it takes about twice as long to get somewhere as by car. The second is the chance you will be subjected to petty harassment, name calling, rudeness, minor sexual harassment, possibly petty crime such as pickpocketing. The third is the chance you will have to stand, and that in general your bus or train will be uncomfortable crowed.

In terms of stations, you can get mugged in a parking lot with a car too.

Perfection what would be nice, but the big thing is to reduce the ways in which transit is less comfortable than automobile. PRT (or CyberTran which though a form of utlralight rail really is not quite PRT - both in terms of some of the advantages and some of the disadvantage) reducds many of the negative differences between mass transit and auto travel. Not all of them - but once you are guaranteed a comfortable seat, the ability to sit back and relax , read if you want to chat if you want to, whatever on your trip will make up for any minor difference is journey length. Hopefully time difference will be much smaller than the two to one ratio you currently run.

by Gar Lipow at 1:24 PM on 17 Nov 2006

Not a criticism

Not to say that your points are not valid . It does reduce the small danger of serious crime that exists in conventional transit even further. But you have a lot better chance of being mugged on a street or parking lot in NY than on the subway. (Not that NY criminal reputation is not an exaggeration in any case.) I think in terms of getting people to ride, reducing inconvenience will be the more important selling point than reducing danger.

by Gar Lipow at 1:27 PM on 17 Nov 2006

For some reason...

... this reminds me of monorail in Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway.

I'm not down on the idea, it just really smacks of the Lanley Institute of monorail conducting with an eventual MCAT certification (Monorail Conductors Aptitude Test).

by atreyger at 2:25 PM on 17 Nov 2006

A Few Answers

I have enjoyed reading the questions and comments. I will try to answer a few questions. Cost estimates have been 50-90% reduction compared to conventional. Monorail these days is about $100M/mile. A recent LA light rail project - $80M/mile. Automated People Movers - over $100M/mile. In those applications we are estimating $10-20M/mile, depending on ground conditions.

Capacity - a highway lane carries peak around 2500 cars per hour. CyberTran can carry between 5-10,000 passengers per hour per direction, or 2-4 lane miles. One outside report suggests that we will be able to carry up to 16,000 pphpd in the future.

How it's done is a combination of vehicle control and scheduling, and 20 passenger vehicles. The key is to invest in the US in innovative transit systems. We are one of the last industrial nations not to do so.

The environmental and foreign policy effects of the current auto-centric society do not make us in any sense secure, to say nothing of global warming. CybeTran is a much more energy efficient way to move people, with electricity that can be made from any source including solar. Bottom line folks is, where there is a will there is a way.

by Neil at 9:19 AM on 21 Nov 2006

Neil

Hi Neil - what about the 4 million per mile estimate from the CTPAPER pdf? Is that now obsolete? I'm think for lighter traffic example - Austin rather than LA.

by Gar Lipow at 10:50 AM on 21 Nov 2006

lower costs

It may be possible to reach the lower costs, though time has elapsed since the late Dr. Dearien reached those estimates. In fact, one consulting firm estimated the whole structure at 2.7M. However, commodity prices have increased and bumped those numbers up.

The best way to keep the numbers low is to achieve high volume modular construction. We estimate a potential for 30,000 miles in the US along major arterials. Once scales of economy have been achieved, we can build .25 miles of guideway from a single construction point per day, and we can build the track off the end of itself. Then we will find out how low costs can go.

For now, while our commodity prices have gone up over time, since there is much more material in other systems, their costs have gone up even more. Soft cost reductions can also be achieved through private-public partnerships.

by Neil at 6:37 PM on 21 Nov 2006
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.