Official Letter on SJ Study

[Dennis Manning]

This letter is available at the SJ DOT web site. So as far as I know that makes it public domain.

 

See: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/CommitteeAgenda/TE/20120507/TE20120507_d3.PDF

 

It answers some of the speculation and opens the door to further speculation.

 

Dennis

[Jack Slade]

What a lot of bullshit!!  You have to build a "Regulatory System"  before you can build anything?  Are you really talking about the Land of the Free?   People who think like this should be deported before they contaminate the rest of the population. 

I could pick other holes in their "Conclusions"....most of them are wrong....but it isn't worth it.

 

Jack Slade

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Dennis Manning]

I'll have to see what's in the report. I don't see why a "regulatory" framework has to be in place. How did they build Morgantown? 

[Roy Reynolds]

Morgantown was built by Republicans.

[Dennis Manning]

Are you bragging or crying?  :- )

[Roy Reynolds]

Neither --being honest and realistic. 

What else should we have expected from a broke and broken Democrat city government steeped in liberal bureaucracy and dedicated to the green technology that Obama thinks is going to save our economy?  Green was one of their original goals for this project and I'll bet was unmentioned in this memo because, like Solyndra, they couldn't force it to succeed.  Needing to have a "Regulatory System" says, in two perfectly chosen words, what these people are all about -- that is, regulation, allegiance to AlGore and his climate chicanery, and more government.  They couldn't decide (and couldn't afford it anyway since the public employee unions have taken all their money) after spending millions on consultants who couldn't spell PRT before bidding on this project, so they defer it to the Feds.  The public and the market seemed to have been completely cut out of this process.

My comment re. Republicans was accurate and only half joking -- Morgantown was a Nixon Administration project that was unconstrained by the Nanny State thinking that so pervades California today.  However it was executed, whatever it ultimately cost, it was out-of-the-box thinking and was damned successful considering the number of people it still carries in a really tough climate with no serious accidents or deaths -- name another 30+ year old system that can demonstrate that.

If they'd bid this (and paid for the results as happens in large aerospace projects) directly to the three or so vendors who all likely coveted the business, they would have received sensible proposals and realistic costs.  The consultants had no skin in the game, and assumed no risk.  All they apparently left behind was a report and an invoice.

[Dennis Manning]

I believe Nixon wanted something to counter balance Democrat Kennedy's space efforts.

[Richard Gronning]

While this shows some of the good side of Republican thinking (there's more), the bad side of the picture was that the Nixon administration threw scads of money at the project without any supervision. Nixon did the same thing with Affirmative Action. His administration REMOVED all of the constraints and supervision for Affirmative Action and threw even MORE $$$ into it. The policy seems to convey the message that human-kind is basically good. It doesn't work for me. Worse yet, there's the assumption that only a certain group have ethics.

There has to be a happy medium. If Fed $$$ are spent, then some sort of oversight should be in place for any project including transportation. There really doesn't have to be a regulatory agency in place, as the SJ report indicates. Proper testing and engineering should be sufficient, but holding the developers to a contract for a safe and efficient operational system should be there too.

Dick

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:55 AM 5/2/2012, you wrote:
>While this shows some of the good side of Republican thinking
>(there's more), the bad side of the picture was that the Nixon
>administration threw scads of money at the project without any
>supervision. Nixon did the same thing with Affirmative Action. His
>administration REMOVED all of the constraints and supervision for
>Affirmative Action and threw even MORE $$$ into it. The policy seems
>to convey the message that human-kind is basically good. It doesn't
>work for me. Worse yet, there's the assumption that only a certain
>group have ethics.

"without any supervision" is a bit overstated, I think. Both the Jet
Propulsion Lab and Boeing had some oversight duties as well as UMTA staff
.
Perhaps the main problem was that the White House wanted it to be up
and running prior to the election - which resulted
in a lot of short-cuts and budget overruns. The UMTA person in
overall charge of the project was a very competent person,
so far as I know, but he would certainly have to do some things he
was uncomfortable about due to pressure from the White House. Also,
who know what role Senator Byrd played but it was probably of some
significance.

>There has to be a happy medium. If Fed $$$ are spent, then some sort
>of oversight should be in place for any project including
>transportation. There really doesn't have to be a regulatory agency
>in place, as the SJ report indicates. Proper testing and engineering
>should be sufficient, but holding the developers to a contract for a
>safe and efficient operational system should be there too.

I disagree. There are a number of "regulations" that would need to be
specified at the time proposals were requested that would enable the
proposers to know what the rules of the game were going to be.
Emergency evacuation is one. Who gets to make the decisions about
fares? Hours of operation? Security provisions and response
responsibilities? Who is responsible for monitoring the operation of
the system? What kind of liability insurance must be purchased and by whom?
What requirements must be met during the initial testing of an
operating system? I, for one, am interested in protecting the public
interest in the project and getting maximum value for the tax payers
investments in the system.

[Richard Gronning]

On 5/2/2012 11:33 AM, Jerry Schneider wrote:

"without any supervision" is a bit overstated, I think. Both the Jet Propulsion Lab and Boeing had some oversight duties as well as UMTA staff

Good to know..

Perhaps the main problem was that the White House wanted it to be up and running prior to the election - which resulted
in a lot of short-cuts and budget overruns. The UMTA person in overall charge of the project was a very competent person,
so far as I know, but he would certainly have to do some things he was uncomfortable about due to pressure from the White House. Also, who know what role Senator Byrd played but it was probably of some significance.

Maybe politics and innovative technology don't mix. I've seen some problems in military tech development.

There has to be a happy medium. If Fed $$$ are spent, then some sort of oversight should be in place for any project including transportation. There really doesn't have to be a regulatory agency in place, as the SJ report indicates. Proper testing and engineering should be sufficient, but holding the developers to a contract for a safe and efficient operational system should be there too.

I disagree. There are a number of "regulations" that would need to be specified at the time proposals were requested that would enable the proposers to know what the rules of the game were going to be. Emergency evacuation is one. Who gets to make the decisions about fares? Hours of operation? Security provisions and response responsibilities? Who is responsible for monitoring the operation of the system? What kind of liability insurance must be purchased and by whom?
What requirements must be met during the initial  testing of an operating system? I, for one, am interested in protecting the public interest in the project and getting maximum value for the tax payers investments in the system.

But wouldn't the majority of these issues be covered in any legal contract? The contract should cover most of the safety and maintenance issues. Possibly security issues could partially covered by contract. I doubt that setting fares should be part of laws or contracts.

Have you looked into the building and operation of Morgantown on these issues?

Dick

[Jerry Schneider]

>But wouldn't the majority of these issues be covered in any legal
>contract? The contract should cover most of the safety and
>maintenance issues. Possibly security issues could partially covered
>by contract. I doubt that setting fares should be part of laws or contracts.

Perhaps that would be sufficient - depends on what is really meant by
"regulatory structure". Building the system and putting it into
operation after testing would logically be covered in a "contract".
If the vendor is the owner, the contact might have to cover several
years of operation. If you have to deal with potential problems that
might turn up (like much lower patronage than expected or longer wait
times than expected). If the system is to be turned over to some
public agency at at later time,
their expectations and responsibilities would have to be spelled out
in some kind of "regulatory structure" I would think.

> Have you looked into the building and operation of Morgantown on
> these issues?

No, but that was a long time ago and I'm not sure how relevant it
would be for a current project. Besides it would be quite hard to do
as the relevant people have retired and the records are probably all on paper.

[Dennis Manning]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:18 AM

To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Official Letter on SJ Study

>

I have a vague recollection. Something about Morgan being self regulating.
That they essentially have little or no oversight. Does that ring a bell
with anyone?

[Richard Gronning]

On 5/2/2012 12:18 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:

But wouldn't the majority of these issues be covered in any legal contract? The contract should cover most of the safety and maintenance issues. Possibly security issues could partially covered by contract. I doubt that setting fares should be part of laws or contracts.

Perhaps that would be sufficient - depends on what is really meant by "regulatory structure". Building the system and putting it into operation after testing would logically be covered in a "contract". If the vendor is the owner, the contact might have to cover several years of operation. If you have to deal with potential problems that might turn up (like much lower patronage than expected or longer wait times than expected). If the system is to be turned over to some public agency at at later time,
their expectations and responsibilities would have to be spelled out in some kind of "regulatory structure" I would think.

So, the regulatory structure could come along after the construction? That would make more sense.

 Have you looked into the building and operation of Morgantown on these issues?

No, but that was a long time ago and I'm not sure how relevant it would be for a current project. Besides it would be quite hard to do as the relevant people have retired and the records are probably all on paper.

But, wouldn't it set many legal prescients? If/when some circumstances occur, then the presciedents of Morgantown could be reviewed.

Dick

[Jack Slade]

Whether there has to be some regulation,  sometime,  is not the argument.  The point to be settled is this:  How can you make regulations BEFORE  you know what is going to be built?   It would be just like setting up a new Govt Department to make regulations for Interplanerary travel,  which may happen sometime. 

 

The other stupidity that should be avoided is setting up a panel to to investigate futuristic systems and then giving it Terms of Reference to avoid looking at anything that is not already in operation.  It this were applied to other Industries such as aerospace, medical or computer systems,  all progress would immediately grind to a halt.

 

Jack Slade

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2012 1:18:41 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Official Letter on SJ Study

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:49 PM 5/2/2012, you wrote:
>On 5/2/2012 12:18 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:
>>
>>>But wouldn't the majority of these issues be covered in any legal
>>>contract? The contract should cover most of the safety and
>>>maintenance issues. Possibly security issues could partially
>>>covered by contract. I doubt that setting fares should be part of
>>>laws or contracts.
>>
>>Perhaps that would be sufficient - depends on what is really meant
>>by "regulatory structure". Building the system and putting it into
>>operation after testing would logically be covered in a "contract".
>>If the vendor is the owner, the contact might have to cover several
>>years of operation. If you have to deal with potential problems
>>that might turn up (like much lower patronage than expected or
>>longer wait times than expected). If the system is to be turned
>>over to some public agency at at later time,
>>their expectations and responsibilities would have to be spelled
>>out in some kind of "regulatory structure" I would think.
>So, the regulatory structure could come along after the
>construction? That would make more sense.

If I was a vendor, I would want to know everything possible about the
rules and requirements of the funder, before I built anything. That
said, it seems entirely possible that if the system were to be turned
over to a public agency to maintain and operate subsequently, I
expect so addition rules and requirements would be part of the that agreement.

>>> Have you looked into the building and operation of Morgantown on
>>> these issues?
>>
>>No, but that was a long time ago and I'm not sure how relevant it
>>would be for a current project. Besides it would be quite hard to
>>do as the relevant people have retired and the records are probably
>>all on paper.
>But, wouldn't it set many legal prescients? If/when some
>circumstances occur, then the presciedents of Morgantown could be reviewed.

If there are any, they are probably on paper, buried in some federal
archive somewhere and the retirees who might remember them are
probably having memory problems. But maybe the U of WV is a source
of such information that might be available to a person who can visit
it and go through their archives on microfiche.

[Robbert Lohmann]

As a vendor I have to know the rules and regulations I need to meet
before submitting pricing, or have to exclude this part of the process
from my pricing.

And I believe this argument to be only partially correct. Yes, there
is no specific standard for PRT or ATN, but the APM standards actually
allow you to realize the system according to them. So no, there is no
real barricade in rules and regulations to proceed with a project.

Robbert

[Michael Weidler]

I found the letter to be rather positive. I would much rather they built something, but they seem to be nudging things in the correct direction.

Some of the key preliminary conclusions from the ATN Feasibility Study include:

• The complexity and service requirements of the Airport ATN project exceed the technical
capacity of the ATN systems currently available.

No big surprise here. And before our vendor friends get in a snit, notice that Vectus is not included as "currently available". The only currently available systems are ULTra and 2GetThere. I suspect Vectus is more than fast enough to do the job, but they only have a test track at present - which is considerably more than any US vendor.

• There is no established regulatory process to support the construction of an ATN in the
United States. This complicates efforts to accurately estimate the cost of building and
operating an ATN system.

I read this as there is no funding and CYA. If a government body is taking ownership of the system, then the liability issues need to be spelled out - apparently by the Feds - in the opinion of San Jose.

• The estimated cost of building the Airport ATN is less than building the APM preferred
alignment, plus the ATN offers a higher level of service and greater coverage.

This is an unmitigated coup for side! We cost less and do more. And it is now in writing by two respected transportation authorities.

• The estimated cost of operating the Airport ATN is comparable to the existing expenses of
the Airport and VTA to operate shuttle buses on the Airport and between the Airport and the
transit stations

Another coup for us. We compare to buses on O&M. LRT can't say that. Street cars can't say that. Even APM can't say that.

---

From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2012 6:59 PM
Subject: [t-i] Official Letter on SJ Study

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.