The problem with a system like this is that it requires us to throw out the existing system and replace it. This is unlikely to happen.
I would assume that a more realistic system would to drastically expand our existing light rail, subway etc systems and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs.
Automated cars have the advantage of using our existing road system without the existing issues of storage and accidents.
Combining them with an efficient mass transit "core" we could achieve all the above goals with minimal changes to our existing infrastructure.
""We live in a world designed around cars. Because world population has grown five-fold during the age of cars, we will be stuck with their legacy in roads and low-density metro configurations for at least the next century. This realization is a difficult one. I set out to start a company that could radically transform transportation. But neither the physics nor economics work out, and in fact will not work out until population density is much higher.
It is the ubiquity of roads, more than the greatness of cars that is difficult to defeat. And so, the future of transportation is, perhaps disappointingly, simply better cars. Our abstract criterion for the perfect transportation system is one that is fast, ubiquitous, has on-demand departure, and is quiet, private, and safe. The solution to all of these is a self-driving car.
It is clear that a maglev based personal rapid transit elevated track system should not be pursued as a business.""
Cars didn't invent the road, certainly not the city-based road, anyway.
Most of the worlds largest cities were designed and laid out long before a car was ever even dreamed of.
Roads, laneways and streets are a feature of every single ancient civilization. Mass transit is good at being mass transit, but personalised transportation (whether foot, bicycle, animal or vehicle) is always going to be with us.
Of course the future is cars for the majority of people, because the majority want personalised transport where mass transit is incapable of bridging the gap.
You make a good point here. Future transport system will have to leverage existing infrastructure to be successful. Multi-modal transport, like you are proposing, has are not easily solved. The time required to switch from one system of transportation to another requires hubs and introduces bottle necks and very advanced planning, perhaps even magical foresight, in regards to developing areas. A unified, personal transport system can scale more easily and has the benefits of privacy. That's why cars are relatively successful and haven't been replaced yet.
I'm unconvinced that collective transportation is the real solution to the problem, but it is the best intermediate solution we have right now. Downsizing cars, removing manual control, unifying speed, and adding distributed routing capabilities seems much more promising to me.
>and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs
Why not bikes and walking? Consequently, this solution also fixes the following which automated taxis can't:
-pollution(bikes have much less total in mfg than cars)
-maintenance(many bike shops exist and fixing bikes is comparatively easy)
-parking(take it with you on the train, store in house/apartment)
-cost(nice reliable used bike is under $1000)
-familiarity/public acceptance(people are used to bikes)
-security (take your bike with you and bikes have no software to break/get hacked)
-human fitness (heart disease really sucks)
-infrastructure (no batteries, gas, chargers, parking really required)
Bikes are not a useful solution to much of the populace due to medical conditions or climate. Looking out my window currently, a bike is pretty much impossible to use (ice, gusting winds). Never mind the additional facilities needed at the employer end (e.g. Showers).
Not having a shower hardly invalidates an entire transport system. Nor do I believe that much of the populace has a medical condition that makes it impossible to bike.
After a couple of years in Netherlands I strongly believe that to make the bike a success you obviously need a bike-suitable commute in terms of distance, but also, it needs to be safe. And that boils down to
- infrastructure that is designed for bikes and cars a like. Not some stupid painted lane as an after thought.
- Stringent traffic laws that protect the weaker traffic participant. In Holland for example, the burden of proof is for the more dangerous vehicle in a collision.
For this reason I am not a fan of bike-rental programs. I feel they are easy to implement (dump 20 bikes at train station) and get some political brownie points (see, we do bikes) yet change very little. Redesigning an intersection for safer passage is a whole different matter.
Yes, that is government promo, so here is a random busy intersection in a major city. Note, no helmets, no high vis gear, and all ages are represented. Also, no cars, no door-zone...
For what it's worth Utrecht has a high student population.
Rather than weather, I suspect that flat terrain has the biggest positive effect on bicycle use, especially for commuting. On flat ground you don't have to work up a sweat.
Many cities (in the U.S. at least) have a metropolitan center that is almost completely flat. San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Seattle are the most obvious exceptions, but as far as I can remember, almost all the other cities toward the top of this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by...) are really, really flat.
Weather is usually less problematic than you'd think for short rides in most temperate climate cities. It's only raining or snowing hard a small fraction of the time. Even with snow, once the roads are plowed you can bike with caution. Medical issues--I really think more people could bike if they had the courage; there are the elderly and the disabled, but your average 30 year old would do fine on a bike, even if overweight. Never mind the health benefits. I think what holds most people back are the safety issues with cars, particularly in the suburban sprawl where bike lanes are sparse.
~20 min bike commutes shouldn't get you too sweaty unless it's above 85 outside and humid. If it does, lower the pace and catch more of the breeze! For those that need to wear business attire, you'd have to stash your wardrobe at work. But I wouldn't think a shower is a requirement for most, just a bathroom to switch clothes.
Cars are successful because they work in all climes, are enclosed, and don't make people sweaty. Bikes will not work in a lot of places with snow because plowing doesn't really remove ice patches and winds can be brutal (40 - 60 mph gusts). The future replacement for cars will probably use the same infrastructure and be powered and enclosed.
As to the no need for showers, it seems a lot more people who think they don't need to shower actually do. I had a cube two rows down from a biker that believed that, but it wasn't so.
I think cars are successful for more complicated reasons than that, such as the physical and sociopolitical infrastructure invested in them, and advertising and culture. I can't speak for anywhere but the northeast US, but within every metropolitan center over here, biking would be a better form of transportation for at least half of city dwellers, 90% of the time--provided they all woke up and did it at once, regaining road-space from the taxis and the cars. Imagine New York, Toronto, or Boston with one full lane of every avenue bustling with bikes, the way you do in Amsterdam. There simply aren't enough ice patches and 40mph winds in any of those places to justify the level of car traffic. Also, anybody that currently rides the subway/bus/train or walks is already sweating and does not feel entitled to their own enclosed space.
The road to better health is paved with sweaty armpits. I for one would not mind a little workplace B.O. if it meant for happier, safer commutes and fewer billions spent treating the pandemic of heart disease and diabetes. But that's just me.
> The problem with a system like this is that it requires us to throw out the existing system and replace it.
Right, because all horses were put down when trains were invented. And all rails were pulled up when cars were invented. And all roads were removed when, um, helicopters were invented, or something. Clearly any any new technology which isn't interoperable with the old requires the total abandonment of its predecessor. To ensure this, PRT stations will need to have some kind of access control mechanism which ensures that anybody who uses roads or cars is excluded from the system, and vice versa...
Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is an argument that I encounter far too frequently, and it's completely fallacious. Nowhere does it say that building new infrastructure requires the abandonment of the old.
Your second fallacy is the assumption that roads are necessarily "existing" or are in any way cheap.
First, in the next 40 years, the world's urban population will increase by 2-3 billion people. For the most part, the transport infrastructure they will use does not exist yet. Decisions on what that transport infrastructure should be can be based on current best practice rather than what is "existing".
Second, even in existing cities, roads wear out relatively quickly and are potentially more expensive to maintain / replace than PRT infrastructure. The balance of which is more cost-effective to (re-)implement is something that has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but is not nearly as straightforward as you suggest.
Third, roads are "cheap" only if you ignore the cost of the "rolling stock" (ie the cars people have to buy to use them), and also assume that the underlying land has no value. Note that this is a tremendous amount of land: between 45% - 55% of the surface area in most cities. PRT costs are generally given as inclusive of the rolling stock, and PRT infrastructure uses about 95% less land area per unit of capacity. In medium- to high-density areas, a full-cost accounting of this typically comes out wildly favourable to PRT.
Its two main drawbacks are that it does not handle crush loading caused by large demand fluxes (just like cars, but unlike trains), and that it is not cost-effective in low-density areas (just like trains, but unlike cars). Its natural niche is as an extension to light rail and subway systems (which can handle crush loads during peaks), serving medium-density areas which the mass transport systems could not economically serve on their own.
I would assume that a more realistic system would to drastically expand our existing light rail, subway etc systems and fix the last mile issue with automated taxi cabs.
Automated cars have the advantage of using our existing road system without the existing issues of storage and accidents.
Combining them with an efficient mass transit "core" we could achieve all the above goals with minimal changes to our existing infrastructure.