10821[Fwd: [LotsLessCars] Re: Can Foster + Partners' Masdar City in U.A.E be Truly Sustainable?]
- Mar 28, 2008
>----- ### -----
>Details about Masdar podmobiles and cargo transport...
>p.s. The magnetbahn for Munich got cancelled!
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: [LotsLessCars] Re: Can Foster + Partners' Masdar City in U.A.E be Truly Sustainable?
>Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:10:09 -0000
>From: Mr_Grant <dgow@...>
>PRT does not have to be elevated, it depends on the operating
>environment and preferences of the political/public process.
>While the initial Masdar renderings showed an elevated ULTra
>(ultraprt.com) system, the recommendation of the consultants is for
>two systems from other companies. A video of the consultant's
>representative, Luca Guala, is located at:
>It was recorded at a conference on PRT held last October in Sweden.
>It's mostly him talking, but the picture cuts away occasionally to his
>The gist is that Masdar is being designed to put the PRT system and
>other systems at ground level, and the city will be built on a
>platform above it -- so PRT will essentially be in Masdar's
>'basement.' One PRT system will serve passengers, while the other
>will serve cargo; the former is Taxi 2000, a U.S. company, the latter
>is 2GetThere, from the Netherlands.
>I don't think there is any mention of scooters or delivery trucks, the
>only motorized transport in the city will be PRT and two intercity
>--- In LotsLessCars@yahoogroups.com <mailto:LotsLessCars%40yahoogroups.com>, "Chris Bradshaw" <hearth@...> wrote:
>> The car-free component of this plan needs more detail. But from
>what I can
>> tell, the personal rapid transit (PRT) will travel within 200 metres
>> destinations (about half the distance used for bus "non-rapid"
>> That leaves ground level for pedestrians, yes, but also for goods
>> which will be quite large vehicles for some situations, plus for
>> scooters for those with walking limitations.
>> The challenge will be to keep the cargo movements slow and the
>> "transparent" as possible, so that they don't block views, create
>> endangerment, or otherwise pollute. The vehicle length will have to be
>> limited -- or broken into short trailers -- to avoid having to have
>> turning radii (or not, but have pedestrians required to watch their
>> while yielding to them).
>> I am tempted, though, to wonder if the benefits of having the 'cars'
>> above the surface will produce the benefits of ground-level
>> much as the fact that the vehicles will be owned by the transportation
>> provider, not individual drivers.
>> Such a regime can: a) limit the speeds of the vehicles and/or impose
>> substantial enforcement by vehicle users, b) reduce the number of
>> movements, both by making access more bothersome and by allowing for
>> ridesharing, and c) decrease the number of vehicles in play and
>> the amount of time each vehicle has to be parked, with all the
>> sprawl-inducement and visual blockages that implies.
>> Chris Bradshaw
J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities