So, a system like this would be infeasible in a dense city like SF. Above ground is another story altogether: the NIMBYs would block all construction.
What could work is a system of autonomous vehicles (taxis) the size of a Google self-driving car, running above ground, summoned via a smartphone app or a kiosk at every corner. So, instead of dedicated pathways and elevated tracks, use autonomous cars.
Also: very importantly, each car must have odor detectors / biohazard detectors in case someone has an 'accident' in the car.
This is attractive to the NIMBY crowd, fewer cars, less non-resident parking, less noise ( electric motors ) less local pollution. Who wouldn't want local rapid transit? They're not putting in Walmarts.
And in this hypothetical world, absolutely everyone who uses public transit has a smartphone?
Now picture the line at Space Mountain in the afternoon, except in a subway station.
Why can't you load 15 people into 15 pods at once?
> very importantly, each car must have odor detectors / biohazard detectors in case someone has an 'accident' in the car.
The subway doesn't have this, and it works okay. People just use their built in odor detector, and if there's a problem, they avoid sitting in it and notify a conductor.
There could still be a phoneless kiosk/swipe system for people who don't have/don't want to use the app version, but with cheap Android phones available for $20-$50 (and that's today -- imagine where we'll be in 5 years) I figure 95% of throughput could use the streamlined flow.
---------
All that said, I think I agree with the article's sentiment that this system's time may have come and gone. It's hard to imagine what transport will look like 15 years from now, but I suspect that electric robot taxis as part of a multi-modal transport infrastructure with existing trains/subways could deliver most of the benefit of a personal pod system without the huge infrastructure investments of building a completely new set of tracks all over the city.
Now, everyone doesn't wait 3-4 minutes. They just get on the next available pod. Remember, people coming into a typical station don't come 40 at a time. They come in clumps of 1-4.
All of which transforms a batch system (subway/light rail), to a continuous system.
There is an assumption that stations are off the main rail. Which, given the size of a typical pod, is feasible. It is certainly much smaller than your typical light rail system
=== btw. wrt to speed.
There's nothing stopping you pre-ordering a destination at a machine (or smartphone) before you get to a pod. Swipe your credit card, see your name on the pod you should go to. Walk in. Sit. And go.
And in the case of your daily commute, even easier. Have it pre-set. Jump in to a pod, face-recognition (or nfc/ble) and if it's your 'typical' time, you're off. No pressing/no swipes. Just go.
=== NIMBy's are always going to be an issue and off-grade (eg. above/below ground) is typically going to be required.
Self-driving cars.. are definitely -the- alternative. But only if there's actually enough road. Eg. it's not going to go any faster during rush hour. It just means you're not going to be driving.
Corollary: Is it really that bad to have to ride a bus or train with other people on-board?
Obviously not every case, but I've taken a fair amount of Bay Area busses in my time and there was always at least one of the above complaints.
A PRT system would possibly have a station much closer to my house, so there wouldn't need to be a single commuter rail station for a town of 20K people, and therefore no dealing with crowded parking lots. It would likely have a stop at or near my office, as it's a very busy business district (Kendall Sq, Cambridge.)
1. They should convince company with $$$ such as Google, FB, Apple to build this for building between their campus buildings.
Those company has $ and regulation issues might be might a lot smaller compare to convincing a city like SF to do it.
Might be easier to sell because of the "cool factor".
Those companies can easily convince City of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino to let them do it.
3. Convince Disney Land, World to do this for the "cool factor".
4. All Major convention centers, sport stadium to build routes to major shopping mall/large parking structures nearby.
Only problem is that it's a very specific use case and is likely only to have seasonal ridership. And any example that can be used to show why something can be built is one backfire away from being a reason not to do so.
Of course, it was just a "ride" and only covered Tomorrowland. I've always thought they made a mistake not covering the whole park with one of these.
Appropriately enough given the topic at hand, they have a train for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland_Railroad
Disneyworld also has a railroad (and the monorail) that serves a purpose of serving the whole park. I went at peak season and the railroad seemed to keep up with demand, although I think that's because it serves the "outside" of the park, and if you're wandering the inner parts of the park it's just easier to walk to where you need to go.
First, the reason we haven't seen these is because until very recently the tech needed to make them cheap wasn't there.
Second, the technology seems to be caught a classic "worse is better" situation. The actual PRT tech is clearly superior to buses and LRTs, but those are well understood and there's a simple evolutionary path (car, bus, bus lane, lrt, lrt lane, subway). PRTs require a leap of thinking from people and governments don't have any incentives or mandate to take such risks.
Third, PRTs tracks may be hard to connect to a true network where pods seamlessly switch between tracks.
Finally, the self driving car could very well kill this in its tracks, but no form of transport can deliver speed or consistency without a dedicated right of way, be that suspended track, tunnel, marked lane etc.
By contrast, if the pods were self-driving cars on the roads that already exist, the economics change completely. No special infrastructure. Can easily roll out on a small scale for small benefits. Can easily ramp up. Massively smaller initial outlay. System can grow and pay for itself as it goes.
I'm not saying this will happen but I do fear that mobile homes will make a comeback as people live permanently on the road in cars they don't have to drive or pay property taxes for, all while taking up 2-3x the space of a regular car.
Also, if that did happen, the RV might take up 2-3x the space of a car while moving, but then they end up not taking up the space of a house while stationary, which they usually are, so, you know, probably a net win for density. On the off chance this took off bigtime the economy would further adjust (rentable spots, etc.).
I mean, pretty much any technology can be imagined to bring about a dystopia, but I think it's quite a leap for self-driving cars.
Something like this, only better:
For example, during weekends / night when the load is much lower (or service doesn't run anyway).
See, the nice and terrible thing about Ithaca is that it's a small valley hemmed in by hills on three sites and a lake to the north, so most things tend to be bunched together, which can be almost walkable, depending on distance, temperature, and whether you're carrying groceries. The downside is that there are like 5 arterial roads to get anywhere meaningful in the area, and if just one of them is closed for construction, traffic slows to a halt.
We don't need long or complex routes. I've been on the WVU pods, and while they're nice, they go FAR. I'm talking about a quarter or less of the distance they cover, and only in two directions (and maybe a third because you have a better chance of getting into Willy Wonka's chocolate factory than finding parking at the farmers market). So please, by all means, if you're looking to trial travel pods somewhere, start here.
[1] http://www.intaminworldwide.com/transportation/MountainPeopl...
They are both moving baggage (passengers) on demand between two points. I seem to remember seeing an article indicating that the failures Denver was having (all the empty pods end up at one spot) was visible in experiment, but I can't find it now.
[1] http://www5.in.tum.de/~huckle/DIABaggage.pdf [2] http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/630.pdf
http://collaboration.cmc.ec.gc.ca/science/rpn/biblio/ddj/Web...
Wikipedia article lists five operational systems like this in the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit#List_of...
Wikipedia says [1] high capacity road can carry 2,400 passengers per hour; light rail 20,000 - 25,000 passengers per hour per lane in each direction.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Comparison_with_hig...
"The initial design banned automobiles, as travel will be accomplished via public mass transit and personal rapid transit (PRT) systems, with existing road and railways connecting to other locations outside the city..."
But "Under a revised design, public transport within the city will rely on methods other than the PRTs."
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City#Transport_system
I think anything new/innovative loses in the sound byte war. I remember ~2 years ago, the election for mayor of Honolulu hinged on the candidates' stances on building a railroad vs. expanding the existing bus system (rail won). I think if either of them were arguing for PRT, you couldn't explain it to voters in the sound bytes summaries the news gives us.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140723180502/http://swiftprt.c...