News
Rep. Hinchey Visits C.U. For Podcar Convention
September 14, 2008 - 11:00pmThe age of the Jetsons is finally upon on us.
Yesterday evening, an international delegation of academics, engineers and policy makers gathered in the Johnson Museum to mark the commencement of the three-day Podcar City Conference — one devoted to further developing the use of Personal Rapid Transit. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) expressed his excitement concerning the convention by addressing the positive implications of the proposed alternative mode of transportation
Open up to the future: Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) speaks at the opening event of the Podcar City Conference at the Johnson Museum yesterday., which involved computer-programmed cars run on elevated guide-ways.
“I want to seriously congratulate you on what you’re doing,” Hinchey said to the group. “We live in a time when dependence upon fossil fuels is really, in a sense, passé.”
As a means of reconciling the issue, Hinchey asserted that government focus should be reallocated to “personal rapid transit automobiles,” and subsequently to allowance for “substantial amounts of funding” to achieve such a transition.
Hinchey explained that a transportation bill is long overdue.
“It’s overdue because this administration is not willing to deal with the economy, [and] because they’re not interested in reducing our dependence on oil,” he said.
According to the Institute for Sustainable Transportation, which worked with Connect Ithaca to bring the Podcar City Conference to Ithaca, this is the second international conference — the first occurred last year in Sweden.
“I think you chose the right place in the United States to hold this [second conference],” Hinchey said.
When probed further as to why he thought Cornell could successfully house the conference, Hinchey spoke highly of Ithaca.
“I think that Cornell has the ability and the likelihood of demonstrating the appropriate leadership on the issue. [In Ithaca], there are very progressive and understanding locals — people very much know what’s going on and how to deal with it,” he said.
Mayor Carolyn Peterson agreed.
“Ithaca as a city has been trying to make itself a leader of sustainability in transportation,” she said.
And there were ample attendees last night who demonstrated their environmental awareness and proactive stance.
“I think that the current transportation infrastructure isn’t sustainable. It’s profoundly irrational and expensive,” said Joan Bokare of Connect Ithaca.
According to Fernando de Aragon, director of Ithaca and Tompkins County Transportation Council, Connect Ithaca has designated a group of people who are currently applying for a feasibility study to investigate whether or not Podcars could function in a city that they say is ready for it. For this reason, a time frame could not be attached to the project in Ithaca.
So what exactly is a Podcar?
“It’s a little car that can sit four people … that runs on elevated guide-ways,” de Aragon explained. “By elevating it, it gets above congestion and can run without interruption,” he said.
According to Ed Porter, councilmember of the City of Santa Cruz, California, “car stops,” essentially like bus stops, would be stationed within a quarter mile of one’s location.
“You program a little box to tell it where you want to go, using a card like an ATM card. [Then it runs] non-stop to where you want to go,” he continued.
Porter also explained that the Podcars would function in a series of loops, sitting on fixed guide-ways that run in only one direction.
Manager of the conference Christer Lindstrom of Sweden likened the service to a taxi. “You [could] share the taxi with others, or you [could] rent the entire taxi.”
Lindstrom further explained that the computer system operating the cars calculates the demand for the vehicles at particular times during the day.
“The first day, it’s going to adjust itself,” he explained, so that on a given Saturday evening, the system would learn that it needs to send more cars than it would on a Tuesday afternoon.
While implementation of the technology in Ithaca would be groundbreaking locally, there currently are forms of Podcars in the U.S. and other countries.
According to Lindstrom, people will be using a Podcar system in the Heathrow Airport in London next year, while a similar system currently runs at West Virginia University.
“There has also been a German experiment and a couple American experiments in the last 30 to 40 years, but most of them fade for various reasons,” he said. “That’s why we’re not so self-assured … but we don’t give up so easily.”
According to Porter, potential setbacks arise inherently in the technology.
“People are afraid of it — afraid of technology and infrastructure that’s elevated,” said Porter. “For that reason, it takes a slow and careful process to consider it as a city.”
The conference thus serves as a means of fostering the debate necessary to understand the feasibility of the technology.
“What happens in a crisis is a period of innovation,” de Aragon said, referring to the state of the economy. “This is that: a collection of people with a good idea, trying to bring it to bear fruit.”
The Ithaca Podcar Conference Charging Students $60 (no food)
They were here in Minnesota four years ago with the same references to the Jetsons, the same vague promises. They got three of the worst elected officials to promote PRT - Rep. Mark Olson, Dean Zimmermann and former senator, now Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
PRT is a ridiculous idea that has wasted a lot of time and many millions of dollars in dozens of cities all over the world.
Personal Rapid Transit is an infeasible concept with a long, controversial history.
For PRT to fufill its promise of being door-to-door transportation just like automobiles, PRT would have essentially duplicate the current automoble infrastructure... in steel. The price of steel and other materials needed such as copper have gone way up recently... where are they going to get the money for this?
Does anybody really think that homeowners would allow elevated structure with a clear view into their bedroom window? When PRT was proposed for Cincinnati eight years ago, downtown businesses complained that they didn't want it because it would remove people from street-level.
The station designs are massive (to accommodate elevators) and ugly... since the stations, thousands of them would have to be built and would never pass an environmental review... particularly in areas designated as historic or scenic.
PRT has been promoted in Minneapolis and in other cities by anti-transit, pro-highway individuals and groups who use it as a stalking horse to attack light rail (LRT) as being "too expensive" or "old fashioned".
Here's a video showing two of last years' Podcar Conference speakers bashing conventional transit, particularly light rail .
Here are some questions I hope the Cornell Sun will ask in the next few days:
Who are the "generous sponsors" funding this Podcar Conference?
Why are traditional transit organizations and professionals not participating?
Why is a conference about the future of Ithaca's public transportation infrastructure charging citizens $90 and students $60 to attend?
Why did the Podcar Conference pick Jake Robert who has little or no expertise in transportation to host this conference? According to a recent Ithaca Journal article, Jake did a heckuva job running the Ithaca Festival (into the red):
Incidentally, it looks like Jake's Connect Ithaca website is down.
Too bad the elected officials and the media of Ithaca are buying the PRT snake-oil.
Learn more at the Dump Mark Olson Blog and the PRT is a Joke website.
Ken, you're again repeating scattershot claims...
...that don't make sense.
You wrote:
They were here in Minnesota four years ago with the same references to the Jetsons, the same vague promises. They got three of the worst elected officials to promote PRT - Rep. Mark Olson, Dean Zimmermann and former senator, now Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.
Comment: Who are "they"? The Podcar City organizers were not in Minnesota.
You wrote:
PRT is a ridiculous idea that has wasted a lot of time and many millions of dollars in dozens of cities all over the world.
Comment: Really? Name them, and how much money in each.
You wrote:
For PRT to fufill its promise of being door-to-door transportation just like automobiles, PRT would have essentially duplicate the current automoble infrastructure... in steel. The price of steel and other materials needed such as copper have gone way up recently... where are they going to get the money for this?
Comment: Are you sure you're talking about PRT? Because it doesn't promise door-to-door service, the concept it station-to-station nonstop and on-demand, and the stations are closer together than in a conventional rail system.
You wrote:
Does anybody really think that homeowners would allow elevated structure with a clear view into their bedroom window?
Comment: Curtains.
You wrote:
When PRT was proposed for Cincinnati eight years ago, downtown businesses complained that they didn't want it because it would remove people from street-level.
Comment: That would mean something if buses or trains let passenger get on and off anywhere like a taxi. PRT riders could still ride by and see businesses, and if interested could get off at the next stop.
You wrote:
The station designs are massive (to accommodate elevators) and ugly... since the stations, thousands of them would have to be built and would never pass an environmental review... particularly in areas designated as historic or scenic.
Comment: Again, this isn't PRT: see http://gettherefast.org/bc-ms1.html#1 and
http://vectus.se/eng_testbanan.html
You wrote:
PRT has been promoted in Minneapolis and in other cities by anti-transit, pro-highway individuals and groups who use it as a stalking horse to attack light rail (LRT) as being "too expensive" or "old fashioned".
Comment: This isn't PRT, this is PEOPLE. PRT has no control over who says they support it. What's revealing is that they didn't pass PRT, *AND* did not stop conventional transit from being built.
You wrote:
Why is a conference about the future of Ithaca's public transportation infrastructure charging citizens $90 and students $60 to attend?
Comment: As far as I know it's not a publicly-funded event, but a professional conference that has to cover its costs.
You wrote:
Why did the Podcar Conference pick Jake Robert who has little or no expertise in transportation to host this conference? According to a recent Ithaca Journal article, Jake did a heckuva job running the Ithaca Festival (into the red):
Comment: You've already tried and failed to link that unrelated issue to PRT
(and imply wrongdoing), see
latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/09/is-personal-rap.html#comment-130009622
and
latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/09/is-personal-rap.html#comment-130026388
You wrote:
Too bad the elected officials and the media of Ithaca are buying the PRT snake-oil.
Comment: So if Bachmann says she likes PRT but doesn't introduce a PRT bill in Congress, PRT is evil? But if Hinchey likes it and says legislation is needed, he's stupid? Doesn't. Make. Sense!
A rebuttal to a comment posted here
Wherever you go around the web trying to learn more about Personal Rapid Transit, you'll find one, and only one, extremely vocal detractor - Ken Avidor.
Mr Avidor does not really post comments - he cuts & pastes the exact same boilerplate scare phrases into comment boxes at every site he goes to.
Try Googling the following:
"PRT is a ridiculous idea that has wasted a lot of time and many millions of dollars in dozens of cities all over the world." - or -
"Personal Rapid Transit is an infeasible concept with a long, controversial history." - or -
"clear view into their bedroom window" - and see how many hits or near hits you get.
Mr Avidor also misrepresents things. In this post alone, we have a couple of examples:
Take this statement - "For PRT to fufill [sic] its promise of being door-to-door transportation just like automobiles ..."
PRT is not "door-to-door transportation, just like automobiles" - it is non-stop direct-to-destination automated transportation which combines some of the best features of automobile/taxi rides and train rides using modern, automated control techniques.
How about this one? "The station designs are massive (to accommodate elevators) and ugly... since the stations, thousands of them would have to be built and would never pass an environmental review... particularly in areas designated as historic or scenic."
Everything is relative, of course but PRT stations are fairly small (you can see an example of a station, along with lots of other good stuff, here: http://www.taxi2000.com/) - most would be around twice the length of a covered bus stop (three pod cars end-to-end are shorter than an average bus) & two stories high (because the track is elevated).
Certainly PRT stations are not the massive, sprawling things that "Light" Rail stations are. (Google for images & enjoy the brutalist concrete goodness stretching out for half the length of a football field or more & half the width of a city block.)
Regarding the "thousands" that would have to be built, they would be no more numerous than bus stops and could be incorporated into destination buildings. Can you imagine being dropped off right at the second floor entrance of your local indoor shopping mall, or the office building where you work? As far as environmental/historical approvals go - if we can design McDonalds & Walmarts that can overcome concerned citizen objections, I think we'll find a way to get PRT stops approved too.
Mr Avidor likes to go negative, emotionally. Take this statement "Here's a video showing two of last years' Podcar Conference speakers bashing conventional transit, particularly light rail." "Bashing"? Pointing out some flaws & weakness of conventional Bus & Light Rail transit - competition with automobiles for road use, poor acceptance by the public (2% in Orange County, CA), high vehicle to passenger weight issues, long travel times & inefficient energy use caused by frequent stops - these are facts, but they hardly constitute "bashing".
Or this one - "PRT has been promoted in Minneapolis and in other cities by anti-transit, pro-highway individuals and groups who use it as a stalking horse to attack light rail (LRT) as being "too expensive" or "old fashioned"."
Let's face it, "Light" Rail is "too expensive" **and** "old-fashioned" **and** "slow" **and** "hard to get to" - but it is "proven". Proven to require massive takings of private property (thats people's homes I'm talking about)to provide its right-of-way, proven to be massively expensive to build, even when there are pre-existing favorable conditions, proven to require massive public subsidies for every ride provided (you pay $1.50, the public subsidizes that ride to the tune of another $2-$4, every time), and proven to be massively ineffective at attracting riders (2,3,5,6% ridership in places like LA & Orange County, CA & Austin, TX seem to be the norm). One wonders whether "Light" Rail might not be the stalking horse that auto interests use to prevent real, modern, advanced rapid transit from being developed here in the US.
I won't address any more of Mr Avidor's reactionary screed here, but would advise the reader to go to the best PRT websites:
taxi2000.com, gettherefast.org, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit, www.acprt.org, etc
read up & decide for yourself. But, in fairness, be advised that there are several websites out there that feature "poorly designed" (at best) ideas for PRT that will never go anywhere.
Then go to Mr Avidor's "Dump Mark Olson Blog" and the "PRT is a Joke" website and decide for yourself who is trying to sell you snake oil.
Why Jetsons?
I'm an avid Personal Rapid Transit enthusiast, but I think there's a problem with how it's discussed. In particular, I want to address the reference commonly made to the Jetsons TV cartoon when talking about PRT. To me, the association makes absolutely no sense.
If you really want to get into semantics (and for all you Jetsons fans out there, I hope I'm remembering the cartoon correctly), the Jetsons got around in vehicles that flew in the air and were piloted by people. PRT is nothing like that. It automated ground transport (albeit on elevated guideways in most embodiments).
More significantly, the Jetsons is a quaint, stale relic of how society fantasizes about technology and the future. Nothing against the Jetsons or it's creators! After all, I enjoyed it when I was a kid. But now that I'm older (and I supposed because of my comments, a bit of a spoil-sport), the futurism of the Jetsons really just amounts to out-of-date entertainment which has no place in discussing PRT.
The development of Personal Rapid Transit is an actual application of existing technology to deal with real world problems that seriously need solutions. It is neither fantastical, nor futuristic. Why, therefore, do we enthusiasts and members of the media tend to tag an old piece of pop culture onto a proposed solution to serious problems?
Whatever the reasons, when PRT is referred to as "the age of the Jetsons finally upon us", as Alix Dorfman did in this article, one inaccurately describes the technology to newcomers, belittles the real-world needs to update our transportation technology, and, in my opinion, discounts the people working hard on making it happen.
I don't want the Jetsons. I want a better way to get around, and I think PRT is one good solution. So, let's find a new metaphor. Suggestions?
Aaron
Metaphors for PRT
Europe seems fond of 'podcar', which the American PRT community is slow to embrace, and grudgingly at that. The Swedes refer to 'bubbles on beams' (bubblor pa balkar). I've always like 'travelator.'
How many in the "American PRT Community"?
According to this PRT forum, the answer is zero not counting Mr_Grant the forum administrator.
Only a handful of Ithacans showed up at the State Theater on Tuesday for the Podcar dog & pony show... (yawn).
Is that all you've got?
If it's any of your business, Ken, I decided not to use it as a forum because there are too many popups. It is now an archive/work area which I have yet to purpose. Using your logic, it's possible to look at the number of Comments made on your "Dump Mark Olson" blog and conclude no one read it anymore (or as you might write so hep-ly: *crickets*).
The PRT Guys Are Full of Excuses
Over thirty-years of failed projects, millions of dollars wasted and they keep asking for more money for another bogus project.
How many chances do these guys get?
Homework for Ken
How many years did it take women to get the right to vote, how many 'chances' would you have given them? How many failed attempts were made to fly an airplane, how many _died_ in the attempt, before the Wrights did it? How many steam locomotives failed before someone got it right?
You're losing the propaganda battle, Ken. ULTra, Vectus and Masdar are coming. Tick-tock, Ken.
Don't hold your breath...
Don't hold your breath... here's a video of Rep. Mark Olson in 2004 proclaiming Taxi 2000 Microsoft of public transit.
Whatever happened to Taxi 2000.... why wasn't Taxi 2000 at the Ithaca Podcar Conference?
Where was Pathfinder, PRT International and JPods?
No opinion then...?
...on women's suffrage? I think it's so bogus of Avidor to complain about money supposedly 'wasted' on PRT research (by corporations he would otherwise despise and governments of countries where he doesn't live), when every day the news is replete with disclosures of the billions the Bush crime family has wasted or stolen from the people. And without spending any of it on PRT.
Counted
I was at the State Theater and counted over 100 people attending. More than a handful. Misinformation again, Avidor.
Of course...
...it was misinformation. If he had a source in Ithaca he would have posted a quote or video, instead of vague allegations of the conference being a "bust." Ken wouldn't have the time to personally travel to Ithaca, since he already spends so much time traveling between his homes in Minneapolis and Alameda (http://tinyurl.com/5ezktw). Although -- if he did decide to live in all the cities he is fighting PRT, soon he would have more houses than John McCain. So I guess in that respect it's a win-win for Ken.