MiniCity Discussion Page
This page is devoted to a discussion of the ideas presented in Chapter 9 (A New Kind of MiniCity) of the book entitled Tomorrow's Transportation by Garrison and Ward. Comments are posted in the order in which they were received.
Some initial thoughts by Jerry Schneider, July 04, 2005
Garrison and Ward identify an application for what could be called as "indoor-only PRT" technology. It is conceptually similar to PRT but not envisoned to be as complex and fast. There are some peoplemover technologies, existing or under development, that come close to matching their concept description. One example is a small monorail that is operating inside of a large shopping mall, called Lotte World, in Korea. It was built by the Intamin Company of Switzerland. Other technologies that could be readily adapted to this application include the Swiss Serpentine concept, the ParkShuttle system in the Netherlands, and the Pathfinder PRT system in the U.S. At the new Swiss Serpentine website, there is a 3-D diagram that shows an internal transport system concept that is very similar to the ideas expressed by Garrison and Ward.
Other PRT technology concepts that might be adapted to this application, but with some significant changes, include the Skyweb Express system, the MicroRail concept, the ULTra being developed in the U.K., the Cabintaxi PRT system and the Mitchell PRT system. Other possibilities include ELAN and various Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV) concepts.
The minicity concept described by Garrison and Ward is very similar to the work of internationally -known architect Moshe Safdie. He describes a linear, pedestrian-only, activity center that is served by a "conveyor" system that is available to anyone that wants to ride, rather than walk, to another part of the linear activity center. Details of his concept are available in his 1998 book entitled The City After the Automobile: An Architect's Vision (reviews are available at amazon.com). Safdie's conveyor system has essentially the same characteristics as the minicity vehicles described by Garrison and Ward.
Another similar idea, called the Extended Transit-Oriented Development (E-TOD), has been developed by Jerry Schneider. It has been derived from various Transit-Oriented Development concepts that have been constrained in their physical size to limit all development to an area that is no more than a 5-minute walk distance from a rail transit station. This constraint limits the applicability and utility of the concept too much. So, the E-TOD concept makes use of a PRT or some other type of peoplemover circulator system to extend the physical size of the TOD area to include many adjacent locations that are beyond a 5-minute walk from a transit station. E-TOD details and illustrations are available. The E-TOD is very similar to the minicity concept proposed by Garrison and Ward.
Persons who would like to pursue these ideas would need to find some appropriate shopping center developers who have an interest in expanding existing very large scale shopping centers or in building new ones that come closer to meeting the specifications set forth by Garrison and Ward and/or Safdie. Shopping center developers are a well-organized group and have a very active association called the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). It is served by a monthly newsletter called Shopping Centers Today that has a very large circulation.
Many of the large shopping malls (e.g. Mall of America in Minneapolis) are already beginning to have some of the characteristics of the minicity envisioned by Garrison and Ward. Most Edge Cities include one or more large shopping malls, together with many office and residential buildings with some notable examples being Tysons Corner in Northern Virginia, the Galleria/Post Oak complex in Houston, downtown Bellevue, Washington near Seattle and the Perimeter Center area in Atlanta. Provision of a peoplemover system of some sort that would connect the various activities (i.e. buildings) in an Edge City would also satisfy the minicity concept. Some segments of the peoplemover would have to be "outdoors" but those route segments could be operated under a enclosure that would make it useful at any time of the year in all kinds of weather.
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 15:47:28 GMT0BST
From: Cliff Guy <Guy@Cardiff.ac.uk>
There is some debate on this topic at present in the UK. We have
a very small number of true regional malls in this country (most of
our shopping development has been within city centres). However
some of these are likely to attract further uses. I would refer you to
a paper by Michelle Lowe entitled 'Britain's regional shopping
centres: new urban forms?', published in Urban Studies 37:2,
February, 2000, pp 261-274, which deals with precisely this question.
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000 21:30:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Mars <jmars@acs.ryerson.ca>
Come see Scarborough Town Centre (near Toronto) today! Many condo buildings with
thousands of apartments, likewise office employment. Unfortunately, not
right on the subway but at the end (last two stops) of the Scarborough
Rapid Transit line (Vancouver technology but with staff on board to
appease union) which continues east from the last subway stop, Kennedy.
Also next to Highway 401 (14 total lanes) Also municipal offices (now,
with amalgamation, a sub-city hall) and a YMCA. There is also some sign
of residential infill into obsolete adjacent light industrial areas.
These tend to be dense forms of rowhouses and semi-detached houses, with
the apartment towers concentrated where originally intended just east of
the Scarborough Town Centre mall. Mall is doing relatively well, even
with the demise of Eaton's department stores, including second theatre
complex.
More than a few apartment buildings!
==========================================================================
James H. Mars, M.R.P., Ph.D., AICP, MCIP, RPP
Professor
School of Urban and Regional Planning
Ryerson Polytechnic University
350 Victoria St.
Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3 CANADA
Tel: (416) 979-5000 ext. 6764
Fax: (416) 979-5357
Email: jmars@acs.ryerson.ca
August 8, 2000
Interesting concept, this minicity which starts from a suburban mall.
The only thing I dont like in the paper is this idea of a "fence"
which is the problem of all the people movers with the barrier effect.
The solution is to think about vehicles which can run safely among
pedestrians. People get used to trams, so why not a smaller vehicle
which can stop much faster? If the vehicle moves slowly, the solutions
already exist (see the AVGs in industry). This is the approach of
systems like the Parkshuttle or the Serpentine or the French CyCab.
In Europe, the concept of minicity will probably start, not in a
shopping mall, but in a car-free zone in historic cities where cars
are a real nuisance and restrict the access.
There is now a new player in the development of these automated
vehicles who is working with us (Inria) and Frog : Yamaha (they
already have sold several thousands of low cost automated vehicles for
golf courses).Thousands of AGV vehicles now run autonomously in factories and
shipyards (see http://www.frog.nl/eng/indexd.html). Several guidance
technologies are used : wire-guidance, painted strips, magnetic nails,
transponders, reflective beacons,.... Anti-collision is done with various
technologies also : active bumpers, ultra-sound, laser scanners,....
The Yamaha golf carts use simple wire guidance and magnets to code stops and
speed data. A simple anti-collision exists only between vehicles so that they
do not bump into each-other (radio-waves). Each vehicle costs about $10,000.
Infrastructure cost is almost nil. These golf carts are (for the moment) only
sold in Japan. Yamaha is now working with us, Robosoft and Frog in order to
bring automated vehicles (actually dual-mode) into cities. A demonstration
system with 5 vehicles is now being constructed at INRIA, near Paris with 5 vehicles
derived by Yamaha from the electric golf carts. We will soon have a Web site
to present the demonstration.
For more information about Cycab, see the following website.
It is a product now on sale from Robosoft.
(http://www.robosoft.fr/SHEET/01Mobil/2001Cycab/CyCab.html)
--
*******************************************************
Michel Parent
La Route Automatisee
INRIA
BP 105
F-78153 Le Chesnay Cedex, France
Tel 33 1 39 63 55 93
Fax 33 1 39 63 54 91
Michel.Parent@inria.fr
August 8, 2000
I'v read with interest about the Minicity concept. As pointed out the lower
speed requirement and indoor nature of the concept can greatly trim costs
and complexity relative to more common PRT concepts. In various forms the
concept has been around for awhile. You may have already read "Give the City
Back to the People" by George Jernstedt. His vision has many similarities.
Also of possible interest as the base technology for Minicity is
Magenemotion (http://www.magnemotion.com). Magnemotion completely controls
vehicle motion magnetically, and is well into building test facilities. The
guideway cross section is rectangular and relativley flat. It would adapt
very nicely to building interiors. It can also run with guideway in the
ceiling giving another element of design flexibility. Strongly suggest you
check it out. (I have no affiliation with Magnemotion).
I have always had a fascination with PRT's abiliity to travel inside
buildings and to have multilayer or 3 dimensional capability, also, the
potential to create auto free zones, but as you say, where does one get
started? Is it more likely to begin with PRT on the exterior and bring
customers to a mall or to begin inside and extend outward to bring people
in? I have spent more time with the outside-in approach, but see
considerable merit in inside-out. There are many cost trade-offs to explore
- taking up floor space versus outside structures, cost of building
connectors, retrofitting versus new construction, etc. If I were a mall
owner my first concern would be how many customers would it bring in versus
the costs. Since an exterior system would probably place more costs on
whomever the PRT system developer was, and cause less disruption to my
building, I might favor the exterior approach.
In the longer run I believe the result will be the same. PRT will go from
inside to inside, because that is the nature of our trip desires. Nearly all
trips have a building interior as the O&D. This is far more desireable than
the auto: exit building - walk to parking - stop and go drive - repark -
walk to building. Building - building is so much more elegant, and it can
free up the space between buildings for huge aesthetic improvements over
asphalt, noise, and fumes.
Dennis Manning - formerly President of the Advanced Transit Association www.advancedtransit.org
August 9, 2000
Mitchell Transit could easily be applied to the situation discussed above.
MTS is designed to be a space saver. An MTS boarding station need be only
ten feet wide and long enough to accommodate a couple of vehicles. MTS
passengers ride in tandem allowing the cars to be narrow, so guideways are
only 36 inches wide. MTS's unique propulsion system further reduces space
requirements by permitting light weight vehicles -- hence reducing structure
size and scale.
With the slow main line speed, acceleration lanes a very short. MTS
stations are relatively inexpensive so numerous stations could be placed
throughout the mall, making transportation very convenient. Best of all
should the transit system need to be expanded outside the mall city, the
vehicle could enter into higher speed lines for travel thoughout the city.
Peter D. Mitchell
Mitchell Transit Sytems, Inc.
PO Box 343
Middleburg, VA 20118
540-364-1441 phone
540-364-1661 fax
August 10, 2000
My first impression is that the low-speed indoor PRT makes as much sense as
feeder buses to light rail lines, or the Detroit people mover, or parking
your car ten blocks from your house and riding in a golf cart the rest of
the way. In other words, more expense and longer trip times compared to
taking one vehicle all the way, as in an express bus or motorcycle instead.
If you are only going to go at bicycle speeds, why not ride a bike?
There is a point where a different vehicle makes sense, as cars and buses
designed just for city use don't do as well on high-speed long distance
interstate travel. Also, the bike racks in buses in my county are used
fairly often, so that seems to make sense.
But I don't see a need to use different Higherway vehicles indoors. I think
the high-speed ones will go slowly where they need to with no problems,
just as motorcycles with 175 mph top speeds still work well at 25 mph in
neighborhoods. You may not feel the need to fasten the safety belt in your
car if you are driving around your neighborhood at 20 mph, or wear a helmet
when riding a motorcycle at that speed. But if the seat belts are automatic as
in some cars and the Higherway vehicles, then it won't delay you to use them.
Vehicles designed for high speeds will usually work at low speeds (although
planes have to stay above their stall speeds), but vehicles designed for
low speeds won't go fast unless you drop them off a cliff.
August 10, 2000
From: Mike Mehaffy <MikeM@pactrustlp.com>
I received your information regarding Chapter 9 of the book, Tomorrow's
Transportation. Here are some comments:
In relatively mild climates in the US, enclosed regional malls are declining
in popularity, and a new trend in "main street retail" is becoming a very
popular alternative. It is characterized by pedestrian-oriented outdoor
streets that include anchor retailers, smaller retail, restaurants, clubs,
and other entertainment. Typically these projects accommodate cars in
structured parking and allow some movement on the street itself, although
the scale of the street is intentionally intimate and automobiles are
limited. In this environment an enclosed PTS would seem more appropriate.
Also locating these projects on rapid transit makes good sense. That is in
fact what is happening in places like LA's subway and in other formerly
hopeless car-dependent environments.
Another factor to consider is the high construction and operating cost of an
enclosed structure, tending to be economically prohibitive for all but the
highest volume retail. Residential would have a hard time carrying the
freight unless it was a mid- or high-rise with an entrance on the mall.
Adding the cost of a private PTS would make the diseconomy more problematic.
At the same time, I know that hotels and apartments have been integrated
into malls in a number of projects with some success, particularly in more
extreme climates. If public transit can be extended laterally from the
mall, allowing a lateral extension of the compact mixed use/residential
development, then the mini-city concept might work. This is essentially the
concept of Prof. Schneider's E-TOD. This concept also would seem to have
more promise in colder climates, where indoor malls remain relatively
popular. One could imagine a chain of indoor structures of varying sizes,
served by transit.
Another caveat I would offer is the "naturalness" factor. Often schemes
that look good from a functional point of view are not pleasant enough to be
marketable. For example, we observe that people complain about being in an
indoor environment without natural light for too long. Therefore
intermittent parks and outdoor spaces or streets that are partially
sheltered with glass (a classic example is Milan's delightful Galleria
Vittorio Emmanuel) would be needed in any large-scale mini-city scheme, in
our view.
Our Orenco Station project has elements along the lines of a mini-city, in
an outdoor setting. The MAX light rail line runs east and west, and a
pedestrian parkway runs north and south, served also by a shuttle (which
could theoretically be a PTS). We have a retail center along the middle of
this parkway, with restaurants, shops, offices, and residences. We
accommodate automobiles in the rear, although many residents walk to
services or use light rail. It is instructive that this community has
been a strong market success in a remote suburban American location,
although its retail center is not on a scale of a regional mall. Even so,
one can imagine a chain of such communities and destinations, making public
transit a viable option for a greater percentage of trips per day. (See ,for
example, the book entitled The Next American Metropolis, by Peter Calthorpe.)
Here in Portland, the light rail system was proposed to extend to one of our
enclosed shopping malls. The voter reaction was negative: the mall was
seen as an unworthy destination, and the line was seen as an unjustified
subsidy of mall businesses. If a more comprehensive proposal of something
like a mini-city had been submitted, the outcome might have been different.
Alternatively, a new streetcar line was approved that will run from the MAX
light rail to the trendy street-front retail district of Northwest 23rd
Avenue, which includes residential and other uses.
One last comment. The authors talk about "the ingenuity within our free
market economy in spotting and exploiting new market niches." True enough,
but I would also stress the essential role of democratic processes in
forming a regional vision and in setting, and funding, regional
transportation policy. Public and private entities each have a vital role,
and must work together in such projects if they are to be successful. That
was one of the major lessons brought home to us on the Orenco Station
project.We like to joke that it took an act of Congress to create Orenco
Station, and in fact it did: Oregon's Senator Hatfield committed the region
to residential density at station areas in exchange for federal funding for
the light rail extension to Hillsboro. The result was a zoning change that
prompted our company to sit down with the jurisdictions and shape a new code
that combined public policy goals and private flexibility in responding to
markets.The jurisdictions did what they did best -- implement
democratically-decided regional policy -- and working with them, we did what
we did best: respond to the market in an efficient and innovative way. I
believe that kind of public/private partnership gives us the best shot at an
emerging new generation of transit-oriented development that enhances the
quality of life for the future. I appreciate very much the authors'
contribution of ideas in that direction.
August 14, 2000
One [budding minicity] example I know about is The Woodlands, located just
north of Houston, Texas
They are expanding a 4 anchor mall to 5 and adding a water-based transportation
system -- water taxis and trolleys along a linear water-based park,
going 1.5 miles from the mall, through offices (one 30 stories and
currently under construction), entertainment (megaplex, and expanding,
regional scale open air ampitheater), as well as higher density
housing.My book, entitled Reforming Suburbia: The Planned Communities of Irvine, Columbia and The Woodlands,
provides details about the design and development of these large new communities. It was published in March, 2005, by the University of California Press.
Dr. Ann Forsyth
Director, Metropolian Design Center, U of Minnesota
forsyth@umn.edu
Last modified: July 04, 2005
