|
Written by Michael D. Setty
|
|
Tuesday, 29 December 2009 |
I'm glad to see that PRT advocates like MIke C. (See comments No. 32, 36 and 41 at http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/12/28/are-london-heathrows-ultra-pods-the-future-of-transit/comment-page-1/#comment-22754) have backed way off from some of the more outlandish claims made in the past by PRT boosters, such as capacities of 7,000+ pods per hour with half-second headways. I'm also happy to see that the more "reasonable" (a relative term) PRT advocates have also backed off and have agreed that the likely scope of PRT installations--if they ever get beyond Heathrow and Madar--will be limited to special cases like "business parks." But I still think his claims are way beyond what PRT can realistically acheive.
Never mind, in most potential cases where such PRT systems could in theory be installed, judicious placement of short new roadway segments for buses, along with major stop improvements, could provide very competitive service, usually at a capital costs an order of magnitude cheaper than a PRT system, and likely much lower operating expenses, too. But I digress. |
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 29 December 2009 )
|
|
Read more...
|
