Cancel
Advanced Search
KEYWORDS
CATEGORY
AUTHOR
MONTH

Please click here to take a brief survey

Personal Rapid Transit
Jeremy Faludi, 1 Mar 06

stanstation-websm.jpg
Wouldn't it be nice to have a bus waiting for you every time you walked up to a stop? And wouldn't it be nice if the bus just went to your destination, without stopping anywhere else in between? The main reason people drive is for convenience like this. But if public transportation were as cheap as a bus and as convenient as a cab on roads with no traffic, why would anyone bother driving anymore? That's the idea behind "Personal Rapid Transit", an idea that's been around for forty years, but is still struggling to see the light of day.

The basic idea is having an elevated track with personal-sized cars, only big enough for 2 to 4 people (and normally used for solo trips). Cars on the main track always go at full speed, with cars shunting off to side tracks for entry & exit at stations. These stations would be located a reasonably short distance from each other so users would never have to walk too far to get to a stop, and stations would always have empty cars waiting for the next user to arrive. This individualized service would be made possible by having all the vehicles automated--no human drivers in the system, just smart network-management software.

In the US, Taxi2000's SkyWeb Express is a proposed PRT system using elevated rail. Invented by a former University of Minnesota engineering prof twenty years ago, it has gotten farther than most proposed visions. Even closer to reality is ULTra by Advanced Transportation Systems Ltd. in the UK (a spinoff from Bristol University), which is basically a robot taxi, driving with tires on a concrete track. There are a number of other prototype systems and research projects, like Austrans in Australia, CyberTran from the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, or 2GetThere in the Netherlands.

No system has yet made it past the prototype and test-track stage; in the 90's Raytheon tried to build one of Taxi2000's systems outside of Chicago, but the project was a financial failure and the system didn't get built; some projects in the 70's and 80's failed because then computer control technology was not smart enough and cheap enough. Nowadays PRT proponents say the technical obstacles are in the past, and the only obstacles are political--when city councils and state legislatures can't even agree to spend money building known-good technologies like light rail, the chances are grim for funding any new technology.

But PRT advocates say it will be cheaper to build, cheaper to operate, and provide vastly better service than existing modes of public transit. As ATS Ltd. (the people behind ULTra) say: "4 out of 5 of users will have no waiting time. 19 in 20 ULTra passengers will wait less than 1 minute, even at peak times." and because of the elevated track, there will be no traffic and no stops, so "ULTra is nearly twice as fast as a car and about three times as quick as a bus." As for cost, ATS Ltd. says "At its most efficient scale it costs about £0.40 per trip to operate and maintain ULTra", while Taxi2000 says skyWeb Express will cost US$0.22 per mile, cheaper even than buses. And the promised energy use is small: Taxi2000 projects 500 BTU per passenger km (as opposed to 2,500 for bus or light rail), and ATS Ltd. says "ULTra utilises 0.55 MJ/passenger km. Other forms of public transport use between 1.2 and 1.4 MJ/passenger km." Since the vehicles are small and light, their elevated tracks would be much cheaper to build than a normal elevated light rail. Besides the estimates from ATS Ltd. and Taxi2000, several institutions like the University of Washington have done their own studies, which seem to concur.

Even if the cost claims are way off, the convenience of such systems might outweigh extra expense, particularly for hyper-congested cities, where getting anyone off the roads is worth money. And because the systems are so light, they could even bring new levels of convenience. ATS Ltd. says their vehicles could operate within buildings without needing structural reinforcement--imagine getting out of a cab on the tenth floor of your office. (They say that in New York the rich people never touch the ground, don't they?)

Despite the frustrating history of Personal Rapid Transit, there may be new hope: As the Telegraph reported last fall, an ULTra system is going to be installed at Heathrow to ferry people from parking lots to airline terminals. Once it's finished (in 2008), we will finally get the first real-world test of PRT.

For more info, Wikipedia has an excellent, detailed article on it. Also, the University of Washington has a few pages of historical examples, research, and lists of current systems and those under development. (They also include several systems which aren't quite PRT, but similar.) We've also mentioned it in passing a couple times, though not in depth.

Bookmark and Share


Comments

Seattle is in the midst of a decades-long debate over a mass transit system. They should consider this one; it would be a novel approach and a model for the world.


Posted by: JC on 1 Mar 06

A few quick things:

1) Elevation is not a necessary part of PRT design. In my opinion, it's actually a big drawback to the system, as the small footprint of the technology would be ideal for a cut-and-cover, subsurface system which wouldn't impact the surface and above surface horizontal planes, except for the nodes for entry and egress.

2) You will almost certainly hear it from all sides about what's supposedly wrong with the technology. One of the greatest absurdities is the belief that Greens and Republicans are in some unholy alliance to undercut traditional public transit (ie, buses and rail) by promoting the PRT "scam".

3) Most PRT advocates consider it a local transit system that would supplement existing modes, but if one entertains the possibilities of evacuated tubes, maglev, and other modern technologies, it's perfectfly feasible that PRT could easily serve both intra- and intercity travel -- perhaps even denecessitating most air travel that usually crosses a land mass.

My belief is that it will be the shipping industry which will be the primary driver of this technology, since it's an inevitable evolution on the path they're currently on (which is larger and larger vehicles with more and more automation).


Posted by: Joseph Willemssen on 1 Mar 06

If the PRT also was used to transport goods it could have very high utilization rates 24 hours a day.


Posted by: jim moore on 1 Mar 06

Well the true point of plt is its cheaper to run the mass transit and far far cheaper to build then either roads or mass transit.

It also can fit anywhere.

Also such a system can have as a destination option a long journey mass transit such as trains and long haul busses.

Now what is NEEDED is a system that has the room to take a person and kids/other. And some items in a drag cart.

Thats the UTTER failure of bussing and a big arse problem with light rail.

But in the not soo distant future we wont need a track f the personal trans. Just a slice and dice of existing roads to put in markers for the cars to follow. The current idea is to drill and cram magnets into the roadway to guide the cars.


Posted by: wintermane on 2 Mar 06

Nothing like mobile hotel rooms to help improve the oldest job in the world!


Posted by: The Icelander on 2 Mar 06

Put ski racks on these, and they might be just the ticket for I-70 from Denver to the ski areas west of Denver.


Posted by: t on 2 Mar 06

t- I bet some resort owners would also love having less space devoted to parking lots.

Does anyone have ideas where these would make the most economic sense? The network effects are great, but I'm thinking that if there are a few compelling cases for their use, we will start to see a lot more of them.


Posted by: Daniel Haran on 2 Mar 06

I want my PRT to:

a) travel above ground. Actually i want them to travel from rooftop-greenhouse to rooftop-greenhouse so we can finally de-pave the roads and plant them with apple trees and pear trees (ok I'm a dreamer, sorry), and;

b) know my playlist and play my mp3s when it picks me up, and;

c) come in sifferent sizes, so when we have a family outing we can go in one vehilce... and when a package is being delivered or someone has to move, they can do it with PRTs!!!

I LOVE PRTs!!!


Posted by: lee on 2 Mar 06

One of the prt prototype systems I saw had 3 different sized pods.

a 2 seater narrow one front back facing each ther.

a 4 seater front back and 2 to right wall.

and a minibus sized pod with seats along one side and front and back.

However what might happen because of changes in tech is no mass transit at all.

Just alot of partial/near total electric cars with automated driving and well distributed recharge stations.

Its bastly cheaper and easyer to jus put in alot of recharge stations then it is to get all the stuff together for even a cheap mass trans system.


Posted by: wintermane on 2 Mar 06

I think that this could be sold to companies who are fed up with the traffic congestion, limitations and expense of locating their buildings in cities.

The PRT alternative would allow the companies to link a number of small buildings in the inexpensive country side perhaps in a loop. One stop on the PRT line will be near the city or suburbia, where the employees are likely to live. Work can be done on the PRT while travelling between the buildings.

Think of the advantages .. inexpensive land and building costs, attractive country scenery .. environmental benefits of reduced car usage etc. ..


Posted by: Brad Evans on 2 Mar 06

Didn't the evil genius headquarters island in "The Incredibles" have a system like this?

Nowwww, since a multi-person pod wouldn't take up that much more room than a double, you could have lower-cost bus-sized pods running between express stops. This might save a bit on maintenance and energy use, since there's probably be a overhead cost per pod that wouldn't scale by the number of passengers.


Posted by: Stefan Jones on 2 Mar 06

The same company which runs Heathrow also runs a half a dozen other airports. BAA is privately held. They issued a press release about the PRT deal with Advanced Transport Systems back on the 20th of October, 2005. Apparently construction is not actually underway yet - instead ATS is using the initial partnership money (1.1M pounds) to "commercialise their prototype vehicles and develop software for BAA", i.e. to actually develop the idea to the point where it can be built. That's why it won't be open till 2008. BAA is getting an equity stake in ATS (25% for 7.5M pounds), which means they are serious about it!


Posted by: Eric Boyd on 2 Mar 06

Lots of information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit


Posted by: PRT on 2 Mar 06

Another main advantage of an automated system is flow rate. The primary limitation to throughput for automobiles is human reaction time. Under free-flowing conditions at 60 mph, the safe following distance of a vehicle is two seconds - ie, 176 feet.

With an automated system, not only could following distance be brought down to a foot or two, it would be perfectly feasible to link and de-link vehicles dynamically - creating on-the-fly shared vehicles. The objections about storage space and space for families could easily be mitigated either by having longer vehicles specifically designed for that purpose that could be called from their storage space (or the network) to wherever they were needed on-demand, or the cars themselves could have the ability to open to the front or the rear if linked with another vehicle.

The Feds actually did quite a bit of experimenting in the 90s with this kind of technology as it applied to automobiles and buses. You can check out some of that on Bénédicte Bougler's website:
http://path.berkeley.edu/~bougler/jobs.html

But getting back to flow rate, the standard Interstate lane is 12 feet wide, and assuming an 8 foot width for a PRT system, over a 24 ft width the flow rate of the PRT (at the same velocity) is 18 times greater than that for vehicles on an Interstate. Obviously an automated system should also be able to attain higher speeds without sacrificing following distance -- so the flow rate differential at higher velocities (not to mention energy consumption per passenger-mile) is going to be substantially better with an automated system.

Some more things to consider.


Posted by: Joseph Willemssen on 2 Mar 06

How is this really different from the flex-car concept, a taxi service or vanpools currently offered by many public transit agencies?

It seems to me that the main advantage is a dedicated, separate right of way, something which currently exists or is being built for many conventional forms of mass transit.

Speaking as a Seattlite, I'm not against the idea, I just wonder what the short list of unique advantages this idea would have to justify building the infrastructure for it.


Posted by: Pace Arko on 2 Mar 06

"How is this really different from the flex-car concept, a taxi service or vanpools currently offered by many public transit agencies?"

How is a computer different from a bunch of guys hunched over their abaci? How is a bicycle different from a jet dragster? :)


Posted by: Joseph Willemssen on 2 Mar 06

Over the last couple of months I've read a massive amount of information on PRT and other alternative transport. And while I'm still in love with the concept, there is an unescapable fact: Over the last 50 years well-over a billion dollars (in today's money) has been spent on PRT development. At least half a dozen test-tracks have been built. Despite this no fully developed PRT system has come close to meeting the capacity and cost claims of PRT enthusiasts.

That doesn't mean that PRT systems shouldn't be used where their realistic cost and capacity figures are appropriate, but people should be skeptical when reading extravagant figures on PRT websites.

Many PRT enthusiasts are their own worst enemy. Nearly all PRT endorsements start by stating that all conventional public-transport is a failure. Many strongly advocate against building new light-rail infrastructure. This means that public transport supporters, who should be natural allies, are now often against PRT.

A couple of links:

For those with broadband, check out the CabinenTaxi video on this page. This system, developed in the 1970s in Germany, is shown on its extensive test-track. It looks like a superb system.
http://innotrans.daastol.com/video/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinentaxi_(personal_rapid_transit)

The ultimate PRT and alternative transport website:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/


Posted by: Tom on 2 Mar 06

Hey wait a minute. I read about something like this at the University of West Virginia in Morgantown WV, like 15 years ago. Then I went with some students and we rode on it. Does anybody know anything about this? Is it still going?


Posted by: Rudd Crawford on 2 Mar 06

"The Morgantown GRT system has been described as the "best kept transit system secret" in the U.S."

http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/morg.htm

Why the GRT is not a PRT:
http://www.electric-bikes.com/prt-morg.htm

I used to take it as kid when my mom went to WVU. Lots of fun, reliable, and cheap.



Posted by: some guy on 2 Mar 06

Same concept as the French Aramis project started in the 70s and abandoned in the 80s. It was very ambitious but the computer tech of the time was not up to the challenge.
There is an interesting book about it:
Aramis, or the Love of Technology
by Bruno Latour

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674043235/104-0685802-0139930?v=glance&n=283155


Posted by: Michael on 2 Mar 06

Same concept as the French Aramis project started in the 70s and abandoned in the 80s. It was very ambitious but the computer tech of the time was not up to the challenge.
There is an interesting book about it:
Aramis, or the Love of Technology
by Bruno Latour

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674043235/104-0685802-0139930?v=glance&n=283155


Posted by: Michael Crumpton on 2 Mar 06

The problem with highways, and it would be the same with PRT is choke points. Everybody wants to get off at, say, a densely populated office park, and you have a buildup of pods trying to access the same track. Then, you have a traffic jam. Getting around this problem would either require a) multiple lanes, or b) slower speed combined with sophisticated metering of traffic.

Current rapid transit, such as light rail in place in Los Angeles, could be adapted to have pods, but tracks constructed just for PRT would be problematic.

Mark Brandon
Sustainable Log - News and Views for Socially Responsible Investors.
http://sustainablelog.blogspot.com


Posted by: Mark Brandon on 3 Mar 06

"The problem with highways, and it would be the same with PRT is choke points. Everybody wants to get off at, say, a densely populated office park, and you have a buildup of pods trying to access the same track. Then, you have a traffic jam. Getting around this problem would either require a) multiple lanes, or b) slower speed combined with sophisticated metering of traffic.

Current rapid transit, such as light rail in place in Los Angeles, could be adapted to have pods, but tracks constructed just for PRT would be problematic."

That's not true. You could easily anticipate peak demand for a given node and segmenting vehicles moving away from through traffic is a simple design issue.

Furthermore, under an automated system, just like with the Internet, systemic knowledge of any potential congestion points would allow rerouting of traffic to better balance demand and keep things flowing properly. And as I pointed out earlier, you're dealing with much smaller footprints for a given traffic flow, so if the automated system is using existing rights of way and substituting for surface automotive traffic, additions to the capacity of the network over a given segment are easily put in. Contrast this with the bottlenecks which can be more or less permanent because of the geography (eg, a necessary water crossing) and the fact that the capacity to move automotive traffic over that space has effectively been maximized already.


Posted by: Joseph Willemssen on 3 Mar 06

"Learn more about the PRT at the PRT is a Joke web site."

I told you these types would find their way here.


Posted by: Joseph Willemssen on 3 Mar 06

"How is this really different from the flex-car concept, a taxi service or vanpools currently offered by many public transit agencies?"

With PRT, one could send their children directly to their schools, without the need for a bus, taxi or van driver. Seniors/Disabled Persons who don't have driver's licenses would be a great market for PRT.


Posted by: Rick on 3 Mar 06

This is totally disruptive! An automated system that would optimize the utilization of all kind of resources! It would be shocking to think how inefficient our existing transportation is.

One idea is to put it in theme parks. It would double as trnasportation and a novel amusement. Las Vegas is another good choice (if they haven't already built that monorail). Being able to beam passengers door to door between airport and hotels in a flash would be quite jaw dropping.


Posted by: Wai Yip Tung on 3 Mar 06

Instead of Personal Rapid Transit, how about Societal Efficient Transit?

As above posters have stated, an automated system will best utilize our resources and provide a novel amusement. Radically connectivity will manifest with astonishing results in transportation.

If we assume civilization is transport, the path towards an efficient economy is lighted by improving the efficiency of transport.

Our economy has three general modes: production, transport, consumption. Ideally, economic production and consumption should be integrated/networked with transportation.

What do we transport?
People Water Food Goods Freight
Information Energy and Sewage

Ideally, all of these should be transported on the same grid.
A Grid of Renewable Integrated Networked Transportation.

Check out my short summary of the optimal transport system:
http://spoey.com/GRINT.htm


Posted by: David Spoey on 3 Mar 06

"The problem with ... PRT is choke points. Everybody wants to get off at, say, a densely populated office park, and you have a buildup of pods trying to access the same track. Then, you have a traffic jam."

If you study the mathematics behind the capacity of the guideway sections and stations, eg http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/capacity.html, you can see that a huge number of people would need to arrive at a single station in a very short period of time to have an impact. This is statistically rare. Since there would be many stations in denser areas and popular locations could have stations with more berths, the likihood of traffic jams is minimal.

As has been pointed out before, merging and related functionality, since it is all managed by the automated control systems, won't result in slowdowns. One type of system has been described to assign slots to each position on each guideway that a vehicle could travel in and would reserve all necessary slots from origin to destination for a vehicle for a given trip. No other vehicle could interfere with that vehicle's trip.


Posted by: PRT on 3 Mar 06

"http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_prt001.htm"

Here's one of many rebuttals to this article:
http://gettherefast.org/lightrailnow.html


Posted by: PRT on 3 Mar 06

Any place say a football stadium that would have huge loads would have multiple track routes in and out and large berth zones anyway just as now they often have huge bus sectiond and massive rail stations nearby.

Also with prt you can have a multi level station much cheaper. At a stadium you could have 6 levels of station with many tracks on each level with many berths for each track.

Light rail is only mono level and at kmost about 2 tracks. And it cant handle alot of destinations to and from such a place.
And as it is automatic it could inform the person in it that the stop was crowded and suggest a different stop nearby. LONG before getting near.


Posted by: wintermane on 3 Mar 06

Lots of interesting discussions about PRT on the Seattle Post Intelligencer Transit Forum...like this one.


Posted by: Ken Avidor on 3 Mar 06

I know little about this, so forgive a dumb question. If "choke points" are a potential problem, they'd arise because many people want to go to the same place at the same time. Presumably, these folks would be coming from dispersed locales. In that case, there'd really be no reason for everyone to arrive in individual "pods". Couldn't the system be designed to recognize many individuals with the same destinations and schedules, and to have intermediate "collection" points, where individual "pods" were hooked together into something like a bus or train? (I suppose you could call it "pod-pooling".)


Posted by: David Foley on 4 Mar 06

When I take the bus, almost never does someone else get to the bus stop at the same time as me. If everyone gets to travel when they want, and the pods really react in an on-demand way, doesn't this mean the pods leave a station at different times? So they are en route at different times, and for pods going to the same station, they arrive at different times. I think this would mean you wouldn't need to pod-pool.

I also think traffic jams could be avoided, or at least be easier to avoid, because it is a closed system, with a known number of pods being used over and over. They could just plan for "popular" places in the office park to have bigger stations.

The only causes of choke points I can see are when pods arrive some place, riders get out, the station is now filled with empty pods, but more occupied pods are on the way. They would need to program the system so that empty unneeded pods go somewhere else, like stations with no pods. Moving empty would be OK so long as the pods actually shut off their motors once they get to their waiting point.

But the planners have probably already thought of this.


Posted by: dscott on 4 Mar 06

http://www.skytran.net/


Posted by: john on 4 Mar 06

There is an extremely vocal group of anti-PRT activists who have spread a lot of misinformation about PRT. When pressed for details on their objections, most of them point to the lightrailnow report referenced above.

But almost every point in that report has been challenged (see this page for one rebuttal plus links to 3 others). The lightrailnow report itself seems to be legitimate (I was initially fooled), but upon closer examination it's more like a propaganda piece written by people who prefer light rail (and naturally feel threatened by the prospect of PRT making their preferred mode obsolete). It is, after all, a light rail advocacy site.

The sections on safety and headway are particularly misleading -- most of the lightrailnow analysis is just dead wrong. I've done the math myself, and either they don't know what they're talking about or they're intentionally trying to mislead.

I'm relatively new to the PRT debate, and in 3 months of searching, I've yet to see any killer argument against PRT. Most of the anti-PRT talk is along the lines of "it's failed before, it will fail again", even though history is filled with examples of technologies that had more than a few false starts before taking off.


Posted by: A Transportation Enthusiast on 4 Mar 06

FYI, the forum _here_, mentioned above by Ken Avidor, has a lot of deleted posts.


Posted by: dscott on 7 Mar 06

Yes, I was quite persistent about demanding proof from Avidor (who was using his alias "Soul Not Sold to Road Warriors") and the moderators apparently decided it was going too far and deleted both our posts. Oh well, sometimes the battle for truth claims some innocent victims. I plan to repost every word I wrote on those boards on a new blog I'm starting up.

This propaganda war against PRT has gone on quite long enough. Sure, this is a young technology that still has a lot of questions, but come on! A global scam to promote highways? Has there ever been such a ridiculously blatant example of using scare tactics to influence public opinion?

The only reason it works at all is that Avidor is so persistent in spreading his message that people actually think there's a real movement behind this, rather than just a few very opinionated (and uninformed) activists. You know what they say about the vocal minority.

Now that I'm around, Avidor will not go unanswered. When he posts his propaganda spiel, I'll be there to make sure people understand that these are the words of an extremist, and if they want the real story on PRT they should research it themselves.


Posted by: A Transportation Enthusiast on 7 Mar 06

Well what nailed the coffin shut on both buses and light rail were strikes.

After a fewof those the populace at large said ok next thing my money funds has to be strike proof.

Only prt is strike proof. And thats why it will win no matter what.


Posted by: wintermane on 8 Mar 06

This propaganda war against PRT has gone on quite long enough. Sure, this is a young technology that still has a lot of questions, but come on! A global scam to promote highways? Has there ever been such a ridiculously blatant example of using scare tactics to influence public opinion?

The only reason it works at all is that Avidor is so persistent in spreading his message that people actually think there's a real movement behind this, rather than just a few very opinionated (and uninformed) activists. You know what they say about the


Posted by: hanh on 8 Mar 06

great idea, though you would have to clean these pods often, like public restrooms, people can be pigs, Im sorry to say but its true.


Posted by: dan on 11 Mar 06

After 40+ years Personal Rapid Transit is the Zepplin of transportation systems. It does not really work and
if they put a large system together they will be
scraping people jelly off the pylons.
Oh, the humanity.

PRT is NOT "young technology". Forty years after the light bulb was invented there were no gas light systems. Telephones were everywhere forty years after Bell yelled into his tele-voice-erator.
Telegraphs crossed oceans and radio was everywhere 40 years after invention.

PRT is just a withered stick on the branching tree of technological evolution. No one left but the scammers and the suckers.


Posted by: joe sixpack on 14 Mar 06

To Joe Sixpack:

You are either Ken Avidor himself or one of his disciples. You quote almost verbatim from the bible of anti-PRT propaganda. As usual, though, there's almost no substance to any of what you say -- just an endless stream of ridiculous talking points that have been disproven countless times.

This time, it's just plain old scare tactics: "scraping people jelly off the pylons", "scammers", "suckers". No substance whatsoever.

So, Joe, why don't you give us a technical reason why you think PRT will be so accident prone? How about a debate on the principles of PRT safety design?

If anyone has any doubt that PRT is real, don't take my word for it. Check out the Wikipedia PRT article, which has a nice technical summary. It also has links to ULTra and Vectus, two PRT companies that are quite active in producing a product, as well as links to all the most important references on the theory and history of PRT.


Posted by: A Transportation Enthusiast on 14 Mar 06

Why are you PRT promoters helping right-wingers like Michele Bachmann?


Posted by: Avidor on 15 Mar 06

For those who don't know Avidor's methods: the last message is completely irrelevant and he knows it. The only reason he wrote it is to link back to his new anti-Bachman blog entry.


Posted by: A Transportation Enthusiast on 15 Mar 06

Examples you want?

The Hindenburg of the PRT Zepplin: How about the Denver Airport Luggage System failure.

For the Goodyear Blimp of the PRT: the toy University Morgantown system.

40+ years and zip. PRT, the blimps of mass transit.

PRT is like some older than forty fat old lady in
a high tube top with low hip huggers. It is no longer "young" enough to get away with the costume. Not a "young" technology at all.
Just embarrassing.


Posted by: Joe 8Pack on 15 Mar 06

Why do ethics-challenged politicians like Zimmermann promote PRT?

Here's the latest news about Zimmermann.

Back to Bachmann:

Listen to Senator Bachmann say "It's PINK and it does what it's supposed to do!"


Posted by: Avidor on 15 Mar 06

I'm not "Soul Not Sold to Road Warriors".


Posted by: Avidor on 15 Mar 06

Today's news about PRT promoter Dean Zimmermann.


Posted by: Avidor on 15 Mar 06

Blah blah blah blah blah. Same old garbage propaganda. And yet another link to his political ramblings.

Once again, for the real story on PRT, see Wikipedia


Posted by: A Transportation Enthusiast on 15 Mar 06

Transportation Enthusiast:

What is this "Avidor" fixation you have? Everyone
who thinks PRT is yesterdays fishwrap
is the mysterious all powerful Avidor?
PRT is widely scoffed at for good reasons:
there are many failures and scams and no
working systems in 40+ years.

Do you wear a tinfoil hat and see Avidors
under every table and behind every tree?
Take a chill pill, not everything is an
Avidorian plot.


Posted by: Joe 12Pack on 15 Mar 06

Joe:

Whatever.

Everyone else:

For the real story on PRT, see the Wikipedia article.



Posted by: A Transportation Enthusiast on 15 Mar 06



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO:

YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS:


MESSAGE (optional):


Search Worldchanging

Worldchanging Newsletter Get good news for a change —
Click here to sign up!


Worldchanging2.0


Website Design by Eben Design | Logo Design by Egg Hosting | Hosted by Amazon AWS | Problems with the site? Send email to tech /at/ worldchanging.com
©2012
Architecture for Humanity - all rights reserved except where otherwise indicated.

Find_us_on_facebook_badge.gif twitter-logo.jpg