Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Mr_Grant]

Initial segment of the initial segment:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/video/seattletimesvideo.html?bcpid=1543292770&bclid=21520189001&bctid=25202302001

If link doesn't work, go to
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com
click Video
and look for "Light rail ride along"

[Michael Weidler]

It makes me want to cry. Like I said in an earlier post, even when people are given the facts, they still vote for this crap. --- On Wed, 6/3/09, Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> wrote:

[Walter Brewer]

Interesting camera angle so you can't see the number of riders. Also note
faster traffic alongside.

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:27 AM
Subject: [t-i] Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride


>

[Mr_Grant]

Well, it was a VIP ride for media, not the public. So # riders not
important.

I posted this video in an attempt to give this group a hint of the
political factors (some would say circus) that go into transportation
policy. All the mayor's empire-building on display in the video is
hiding a mountain of politically-determined goals and objectives --
politically determined by a myriad of stakeholders. It's not just
about engineering and efficiency folks, it's about the politics-driven
world we live in.

You guys need to remember this when talking about your future vision,
and in your marketing. And even in this group -- reading these
messages is open to all, only posting is restricted. Sometimes --
sometimes -- I think the best reason a transportation policymaker
could have for reading this group is to learn about who not to work
with.

On Jun 4, 6:40 am, "Walter Brewer" <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Interesting camera angle so you can't see the number of riders. Also note
> faster traffic alongside.
>
>  Walt Brewer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:27 AM
> Subject: [t-i] Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride
>
> > Initial segment of the initial segment:
>

> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/video/seattletimesvideo.ht...

[Walter Brewer]

Doesn't the media need to know about actual, not special trip, ridership
round the clock?

[Jerry Roane]

Mr. Grant

You could not be more right!!!!  I failed miserably early this week stepping into a rigged game.  What I thought was a meeting of the Texas Clean AIR Force group of clean air advocates turned into a device the government was using to check off a required by statute legislative requirement.  Like a fucking idiot I read the title of the organization with the Clean Air part of the title and believed that was what this group was up to.  After being pummeled in the meeting suggesting that clean air might be the goal and that VMT (vehicle miles traveled) was an intermediary to clean air ultimate goal I was the odd man (and I mean that almost literally) out in the meeting.  After researching the funding mechanism of this "non-profit" and how much value they expect to get out of the $50,000 they have in the bank I came to realize it was a cost cutting method that several government entities had done to pool the research, pool the money and get legislative credit for getting the public to participate in the reduction in VMT theology.  Even after I went to great lengths with three very long email exhibitions of logic about where air pollution comes from in our Austin case and why moving people from low polluting gasoline engine vehicles to much higher polluting big box transit, it all fell on deaf ears.  The fix was in before I showed up.  What the purpose of the meeting was (in thoughtful retrospect) was to get a "consensus" of this group of assembled government staff and "industry" (that would be me and a few other companies represented) and to get the endorsement of a plan to set the goal of Greater Austin to brow-beat the population to promise and pledge to drive 1% less vehicle miles.  The net effect not being on the surface as a bad thing but in all practical reality a horrid screw up by this assemblage.  A screw up because it negated real change in the hope of clean air for my children. 

If I had understood the intent or opened the power point pages that this lady had prepared (not that it was made available to us) I would have realized that this 1% pledge was already written in ink (stone) before the lights went on in the conference room.  My part was to show up, keep quiet, and get counted as part of the consensus that a 1% VMT reduction in favor of taking the bus or light rail was a proper choice for a community that has D minus air quality and will most likely fail our EPA mandated D minus air quality status this very summer.  I normally would have sworn we were going to fail but the unemployment rate and collapse of the Austin high tech economy has dropped the air pollution some and may keep us under the EPA D minus grade until business recovers whenever that is. 

I being stupid and ignorant of the fix, woke up early that morning and washed and wiped clean the Chevy HHR Panel with TriTrack on the side, waxed up the 1/8th scale model and packed the city grid large map mounted behind glass and drove an hour down to this meeting thinking that the clean AIR Force was looking for ways to clean up our air so that the EPA Region 6 does not cut off highway funds.  What a sap!  What a goof!  Now I feel like such an idiot falling exactly into the game landing there confused, amazed at the arrogance of the VMT blind advocates and trying desperately to wedge in sideways new information that would revolutionize transportation in Austin while cleaning up the polluted air so much that the Texas Clean AIR Force could be shut down --- Job well done!  Instead I was publicly embarrassed my project derided and cast as Mr. Sprawl-o-matic and as a minimum it created uncomfortable moments for everyone in the room as I gasped at the group-think.  It was only after I had left that the truth of this 1% milk toast (I would like to loose 5 pounds this week) commitment from these people would could not legitimately commit for the public, committed to this 1% reduction in vehicle miles traveled in the greater Austin area. 

Yes I am still pissed.  In case you can't tell.  Your advice is sound and solid.  You are very correct that we need to be aware of the political underpinnings of any of these activities.  Somehow we need to know who is friend and who is foe and who is passively used and duped.  I hope the political folks who read this list come to understand that those with technological solutions care about the quality of life for everyone and we see the political machine as strange.  Our intentions are pure but our technique will get refined in the fire of being burned.

Jerry Roane    

[Mr_Grant]

Walt, the line is not actually open to the public yet. The video
documented an advance press junket.

[Walter Brewer]

Repeat: Mass transit obsession is a wonder to behold!

[Walter Brewer]

Yes, got it.

[Mr_Grant]

The problem with your Attitude is that you are sneering at a local
transit project. Its mission is to provide transit service. So the
agency involved assessed the various technologies and picked one. Yes,
light rail is no where near perfect. Yes, the PRT community can
legitimately cite the ways PRT was incorrectly portrayed and
evaluated.

But the fact is that there was no PRT system that was ready to go; and
--

*it is not the responsibility of local transit districts to provide
major R&D or startup capital for experimental technologies*

In fact it is the responsibility of authorities spending tax dollars
to not only pick a technology that most fulfills the project
objectives, but also minimizes financial risk.

Even though PRT would have met service objectives, the Seattle process
couldn't have selected it because it failed the risk test -- there was
nothing available to buy. While we can criticize the staff who
flunked PRT for capacity reasons, they were right-on as far as the
risk calculation.

Whose fault is it that PRT systems were not fully tested and ready to
build (not a question).

The Seattle LRT exists, the community chose it on the best information
available at the time. Those of us advocating for PRT in Seattle
aren't sneering at it or pretending it doesn't exist, or that PRT will
someday replace it. We are thinking about how PRT can help LRT work
better. Because it's the right thing to do.

Anti-rail and anti-government sentiments on a group as small as this
makes it tougher for us. For all of us, whether you believe it or not.

[Jerry Roane]

Mr. Grant

I give up.  My communication skills just suck.  I can't tell a story about a group trying to check off VMT reduction of 1% using my reputation partially to satisfy a legislative requirement to have public involvement for air pollution.  I could give a rats ass if they blew 100 million dollars on rail equipment and an unsafe (as defined by federal fines) arrangement of tracks, guard arms and sidings. The meeting was about VMT (vehicle miles traveled) and the fix was that we were supposed to go along with the prescripted 1% "commitment".  This has little to do with PRT just the political manipulation.  I am sneering at a fundamentally dishonest approach to clean air doing much more damage than good.  How you read transit project and PRT when I am a dual mode advocate means I need to get my two engineering summer interns to write these things.

I'm done.

Jerry Roane

[Mr_Grant]

Jerry,

I wasn't referring to you in my last message, sorry if that wasn't
clear.

I understand your frustration with the process in question because it
was not a real public process. It sounds like it was just to provide
cover to the higher-up who funds them.

1% VMT is prima facie not serious, and any group marching under that
flag aren't serious either.

I would have advised you to not to have wasted your time because your
efforts are too sincere to spend on a bureaucratic exercise.

[Jerry Roane]

Thanks I feel better.

Jerry Roane

[Walter Brewer]

But I WAS referring to Jerry.

Can you determine if my comment also applies to the Seattle decision you
outlined a message or so back? Have you seen a level playing field
quantitative comparison of the LRT choice with the bus option using
parameters like cost, energy, congestion reduction, rider preference? Or
with adding road capacity for that matter? What were results of public
surveys for this corridor?
If not, is the info available with the rationale for the choice defined?

Agree it is difficult for a local leadership to take the risks PRT might
have. But spending huge amounts on facilities that seldom show any signs of
meeting demand that the people want is not very smart either.

[Mr_Grant]

You mean "Repeat: Mass transit obsession is a wonder to behold!"?

I am NOT going to get into a detailed rehash of Seattle's relationship
with mass transit, which borders on self-loathing.

I know of no other histories that I would consider neutral. They are
either unduly rosy or unfairly conspiratorial in their views.

Natives trace the story back 39 years to a rejection of rail system
funding measure that ended up going to Atlanta, a late 1980s advisory
ballot that told leaders to Do Something, and 1995 and 96 measures
that finally resulted in the system that's about to open. This article
http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=2677
scratches the surface of the story.

My personal characterization, having lived through all the above
events, is that we spent decades regretting the 1970 No vote, then
procrastinated until traffic became unbearable in the 80s. After
that, the process ping-ponged between Do Something Now and sticker
shock.

Policymakers were under great pressure to Do Something. Traffic
solutions was the biggest local issue of the 90s. So they did
something, they made a decision based on the best options available at
the time. There were problems along the way, like any major capital
works project.

I guess under those circumstances you're a No-Build Option guy. Well
in 1996 Seattle, no-build was NOT an option. I can't recall any
policy experts who recommended it; most of them probably went through
the same graduate program I did, and we were trained to do neutral
objective analysis.

Now our LRT line, 13 years in the making and 7 miles shorter than
promised, is about to open. Those who never liked the plan seem
content to keep criticizing what is a done deal. I don't get much
satisfaction from that. In addition, the public sees that criticism
as opposing transit, a perception I have to spend a lot of time
fighting. It has undoubtedly cost us support.

Let me emphasize this: opposing LRT has not helped PRT.

I would rather move on to the next civic question, which is How Will
We Get To The Train, and how will we get transit to underserved
areas. My answer to both is PRT, and it would be nice if all
innovators would join me.

[Jack Slade]

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> wrote:

From: Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Received: Friday, June 5, 2009, 12:09 AM >>>The problem with your Attitude is that you are sneering at a local transit project. Its mission is to provide transit service. So the agency involved assessed the various technologies and picked one. Yes, light rail is no where near perfect.  Yes, the PRT community can legitimately cite the ways PRT was incorrectly portrayed and evaluated. But the fact is that there was no PRT system that was ready to go; and<<<

I have to disagree . I have been watching this Seattle project to develope for over 10 years, and the decision was made before that, and nothing else was considered.   No PRT system ready to go? Where do you come up with that statement? Seattle has refused to look at anything except what some rail lover planned long ago, and I think you know it. San Jose hasn't found there is nothing available, in fact, they have 17 to choose from.  All of them are better than the decision Seattle has made.   Jack Slade --

[Kirston Henderson]

on 6/5/09 1:37 AM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

I have to disagree . I have been watching this Seattle project to develope for over 10 years, and the decision was made before that, and nothing else was considered.

No PRT system ready to go? Where do you come up with that statement? Seattle has refused to look at anything except what some rail lover planned long ago, and I think you know it. San Jose hasn't found there is nothing available, in fact, they have 17 to choose from.  All of them are better than the decision Seattle has made.

   At the time that Seattle selected LRT, I really can't think of any alternate systems with credible operating demonstration systems.  There were a lot of wanabe, paper systems, but nothing that public officials and the consulting engineers upon which they could dare stake their engineering and political reputations to select.

   I have said to a long time that the chances of anyone selling any new system without having a credible operating demonstrator are nearly nill.  That is precisely why our own company has been working tirelessly and spending a lot of money developing just such a demonstrator system.  Fortunately, we are finally reaching that point.  At the same time ULTra and ToGetThere have managed to do the same thing and both have made some limited recent sales.

   As Stanley Markus said, "you can't sell from empty shelves."  That statement applies just as well to advanced transportation systems.

   True, Seattle has spent way to much building systems that are likely to have little real value, but at the time, they really had no other credible choice.  It is our job as advanced system developers to now offer them credible alternates for future systems.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Walter Brewer]

"The Seattle LRT exists, the community chose it on the best information
> > available at the time. Those of us advocating for PRT in Seattle
> > aren't sneering at it or pretending it doesn't exist, or that PRT will
> > someday replace it. We are thinking about how PRT can help LRT work
> > better. Because it's the right thing to do."

It would be nice to hear if available technology roads were considered, and
what was the best info that caused rejection, but yes let's get on with it.
Are your last two sentences in the above for general ultimate role of PRT,
or just a useful thing for Seattle's LRT?

[Mr_Grant]

On Jun 5, 6:49 am, "Walter Brewer" <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> It would be nice to hear if available technology roads were considered, and
> what was the best info that caused rejection, but yes let's get on with it.

"available technology roads"? If you mean BRT, it was considered but
some claim the deck was stacked in LRT's favor. Again, I'm not
familiar with an account of that process that I would call neutral, so
I don't want to rehash the shoulda woulda coulda. A BRT strategy
called Rapid Ride is to be implemented by the county (not by the LRT
agency) in 5 corridors not served by LRT. But introduced one corridor
at a time over 2010-2013.

> Are your last two sentences in the above for general ultimate role of PRT,
> or just a useful thing for Seattle's LRT?
>
> Walt Brewer

How PRT will be used will be determined by policymakers, their
agencies, and the political process. So the ideal answer is Yes to
both. It is up to PRT makers to demonstrate the full capabilities of
their products.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:38 AM 6/5/2009, Kirston H wrote:

> At the time that Seattle selected LRT, I really can't think of
> any alternate systems with credible operating demonstration
> systems. There were a lot of wanabe, paper systems, but nothing
> that public officials and the consulting engineers upon which they
> could dare stake their engineering and political reputations to select.

I can. At the time there was a very credible bus system alternative
that I and others at the UW supported. But, it was left in the dust
by the rail advocates and bond attorneys who were looking at the free
federal money, the wonderful fees that they would earn from selling
the bonds and that smooth ride to downtown where they and their
friends had property interests and prospects. A "fair and balanced"
evaluation of the bus vs. rail options were never conducted and
those of us at the UW who understood how little the vast investments
in rail would benefit the public at large organized to oppose the
rail plan by going public on radio and TV - we probably increased the
"no" vote by 2-3% - which was enough to narrowly defeat it. The
establishment's response to this defeat was to put a large scale bus
plan on the ballot which passed. But there was never any serious
effort to implement it as a new rail plan was quickly initiated which
was subsequently passed and so Seattle is now saddled with a rail
system that patronage forecasts show is not likely to make a
significant dent in an ever growing transportation mess.

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:49 AM 6/5/2009, you wrote:

> "The Seattle LRT exists, the community chose it on the best information
> > > available at the time. Those of us advocating for PRT in Seattle
> > > aren't sneering at it or pretending it doesn't exist, or that PRT will
> > > someday replace it. We are thinking about how PRT can help LRT work
> > > better. Because it's the right thing to do."
>
>It would be nice to hear if available technology roads were considered, and
>what was the best info that caused rejection, but yes let's get on with it.
>Are your last two sentences in the above for general ultimate role of PRT,
>or just a useful thing for Seattle's LRT?

Get on with it? Do you think there is an unlimited supply of money for transit?
I think that the rail projects, one coming in at approximately $600M per mile,
are likely to consume so much money that there will little
possibility or incentive
or motivation to do anything else, other than building and extending the rail
system. All this on top of the huge national, state, local and
personal debt problems
that are likely to be with us for at least one, possibly two decades.

[Dennis Manning]

I just got word this morning that the SJ VTA Board voted unanimously to
raise the funds available for the SJDOT to study/advance PRT over the next
two years from $1m to $4m.

Dennis

[Michael Weidler]

David - You of all people should know that Sound Transit was and is required to fund advanced transit. The law even specifically names PRT. As far as I know, they have never honored this provision in the slightest.

--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> wrote:

From: Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 5:09 PM

The problem with your Attitude is that you are sneering at a local transit project. Its mission is to provide transit service. So the agency involved assessed the various technologies and picked one. Yes, light rail is no where near perfect.  Yes, the PRT community can legitimately cite the ways PRT was incorrectly portrayed and evaluated. But the fact is that there was no PRT system that was ready to go; and -- *it is not the responsibility of local transit districts to provide major R&D or startup capital for experimental technologies* In fact it is the responsibility of authorities spending tax dollars to not only pick a technology that most fulfills the project objectives, but also minimizes financial risk. Even though PRT would have met service objectives, the Seattle process couldn't have selected it because it failed the risk test -- there was nothing available to buy. While we can criticize the staff who flunked PRT for capacity reasons, they were right-on as far as the risk calculation. Whose fault is it that PRT systems were not fully tested and ready to build (not a question).

The Seattle LRT exists, the community chose it on the best information available at the time. Those of us advocating for PRT in Seattle aren't sneering at it or pretending it doesn't exist, or that PRT will someday replace it. We are thinking about how PRT can help LRT work better. Because it's the right thing to do.

[Mr_Grant]

Great news.

[Mr_Grant]

When you say "we probably increased the "no" vote by 2-3%",
by "we" did you mean BRT proponents, or the UW?

Just from talking with regular people who vote but aren't big time
transit advocates, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that LRT
is going to "fix" anything, but that it will provide an important
service. I think a plurality of people heard all the pro and con
arguments and simply decided that a rail system is something a major
city should have, and if it's really expensive, so be it.

In a lot of ways Seattle has a collective inferiority complex. We may
see LRT as playing catch-up. We'll see in the coming years whether we
regret it -- of course that pretty much comes with having the
inferiority complex!

One can see a money grab by downtown interests, or one can see civic
leaders providing leadership. If there was wrongdoing, then bring on
the prosecutions. Otherwise, I wish innovators would just focus on
working within the system to get PRT adopted. Because I don't know
how you get it adopted by working outside the system.

[Mr_Grant]

Of course I know it. They promised to fund a new technology
demonstration that could be PRT. They haven't done anything resembling
it, and it was dropped from the updated Long Range Plan.

The unfulfilled commitment is one tool we want to use to convince them
to look at PRT again. I'd just as soon use it as a carrot instead of a
stick.

[Walter Brewer]

How well is PRT defined?

Maybe they argue LRT meets the specification?

[Kirston Henderson]

on 6/5/09 1:33 PM, Mr_Grant at da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us wrote:

> One can see a money grab by downtown interests, or one can see civic
> leaders providing leadership. If there was wrongdoing, then bring on
> the prosecutions. Otherwise, I wish innovators would just focus on
> working within the system to get PRT adopted. Because I don't know
> how you get it adopted by working outside the system.
>

I am convinced that we have to work within the system to convince the
mass transit decision makers to start trying something else that both works
better than LRT, etc. and does it much sooner and at a significant cost
saving. That is the approach that our company is now taking now that we
have a demo system to show other than just "paper."

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Mr_Grant]

"The RTA will work with the community and the private sector to take
part in a demonstration of personal rapid transit (PRT) or other
technologies. PRT is an experimental type of automated transit
consisting of small cars running on a guideway carrying two to six
passengers per car. The demonstration could show how PRT or other new
technologies could be appropriate investments in future transit system
phases."

http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/SoundTransit1996SoundMovePlan.pdf

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dennis Manning]

I think so too. It may be the first time anywhere where a LRT outfit gave
funds for PRT work. I believe the VTA's motive is that a PRT circulator at
the airport when linked to LRT will boost LRT ridership. It would be nice if
Sound Transit could see the logic.

I'm trying to line up talks between San Jose and Fresno transportation
officials to explore the possibilities in some joint efforts for mutual
benefit. So far as I know it makes SJ and Fresno the only 2 cities in the US
with some meaningful funds to pursue PRT.

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

[Walter Brewer]

No argument, and my sincere best wishes.
But follow the money. Most project use perhaps 75% non-local money, and are
unlikely to go it alone while turning down the Feds and State sources.
Working within the system is a two sided coin. When will the highest level
resposible for transportation recognize current approaches are not working,
and like so many other situations, they should support new concepts. For you
Boeing types, suppose the Air Force was still depending on P-6E's? Isn't
ignoring new concepts just as unreasonable as badmouthing LRT? Are the
anti-PRT people being polite and openminded?
Again I welcome Kirston's approach which may open the door a crack, but at
some point there must be motivation by the moneybags.

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Mr_Grant]

Like Nathan, I am a big believer in karma.

[Dennis Manning]

I'll be third to endorse the "don't piss off LRT interests" policy. Work
with them as the San Jose example is now showing. There's also promise at
the Oakland airport. SeaTac??? LAX??? San Diego's Lindberg???..............

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 1:39 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Walter Brewer]

According to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda, we produce Karma in four ways:

a.. through thoughts
b.. through words
c.. through actions that we perform ourselves
d.. through actions others do under our instructions
And your karma-phala would be?

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:39 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Kirston Henderson]

on 6/5/09 2:25 PM, Walter Brewer at catc...@verizon.net wrote:

> Again I welcome Kirston's approach which may open the door a crack, but at
> some point there must be motivation by the moneybags.

Fortunately, we believe that we have discovered a handful of situations
in which something must be done in the near future, the "big money" to take
conventional approaches is simply not there and we believe that the
solutions that we are offering can be easily afforded using a combination of
local and investor money in PPPs. (The PPP cases look as if they can be
really profitable for all involved.) We are attempting to capitalize upon
these opportunities and are getting some pretty good response from the
customers. We shall see how it goes.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Walter Brewer]

There is a bigger opportunity in California------ support of TOD's or
whatever they become under SB 375.
Here is an opportunity to be THE community public transportation while
preserving personal emphasis. And maybe favorable interaction with whatever
inter-city travel becomes.
My analysis says no form of conventional mass transit will meet the GHG
criteria. LA's SCAG has pointed out the inflexibility of LRT. Buses can
still be in the running if the GHG is ignored.
Next step?

PRT in my mind is only a candidate for San Diego if the conventional fixed
rail/bus access concept is abandoned. It would use automated trains similar
to may other airports to get passengers to 2 to3 terminals across the
airport, but that's hardly PRT.
Better, PRT could provide direct access on demand from several parts of the
city to terminal, or better gate area, of choice. For those in charge that's
a pretty radical concept.

I belive LAX situation is the same.

Walt Brewer

[Walter Brewer]

Go for it!

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 5:20 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Walter Brewer]

PRT certaily fits within the gross definition, although the fundamental on
demand directly to random destinations is omitted.
Has anyone asked politely for a progress report on this requirement?
Including why PRT installations have not been recommended?
Has anyone politely offered alternatives to other needs than this corridor?

[Walter Brewer]

Sorry.
I interpreted "let's get on with it" as lets get back to discussing PRT
issues.

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:22 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride


>

[Walter Brewer]

I refer you to my "follow the money" posting.
Exactly what happended in two recent San Diego cases adding up to about $ 1
billion.
The latest one resulting in major complaints about bus options elimination
by travelers.

But I keep asking what happened to the road expansion option? Wouldn't a
much larger share of travelers benefit from that?

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 12:02 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride


>

[Mr_Grant]

"Build more roads" is the paradigm we're trying to subvert.

Seattle's 2007 Roads & Transit ballot measure failed because too much
would have been earmarked for roads.
Ironically, a lot of vocal rail enthusiasts slammed the Sierra Club
for its opposition to R&T. For the LRT crowd, Sierra was being TOO
pro-transit.
In 2008 we approved another ballot measure ("Transit Now" -- LRT
extension, commuter rail and bus service) that left out the roads.

That is a very clear statement of intent by the community.

[Walter Brewer]

Probably in this time scale and a Churchillian sense more road capacity in
that corridor is the least worse choice.
Did RTA evaluate the road option, quite aside from whether it appered on a
ballot?

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:55 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Jay Andress]

Dennis,

 

    That is great. Congratulations.

 

                                               Jay

--
new contact info: jay.a...@monomobile.com

[Mr_Grant]

Why. Would. A . Transit. Agency. Evaluate. A. Road. Construction.
Option?

[Walter Brewer]

Right, I don't know the acronyms well.
Did any responsible agency evaluate the road option? Is there an
"Association of Governments" with overall transportation responsibility?
Seattle must have someone who plans roads?

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:33 PM 6/5/2009, you wrote:

>When you say "we probably increased the "no" vote by 2-3%",
>by "we" did you mean BRT proponents, or the UW?

Neither - it was a group of faculty from several departments acting
on what they perceived to be the "public interest".

>Just from talking with regular people who vote but aren't big time
>transit advocates, I don't think anyone is under the illusion that LRT
>is going to "fix" anything, but that it will provide an important
>service. I think a plurality of people heard all the pro and con
>arguments and simply decided that a rail system is something a major
>city should have, and if it's really expensive, so be it.

Well, I hope they enjoying paying for it. My guess is that the plurality
of voters are "low information" voters.

>In a lot of ways Seattle has a collective inferiority complex. We may
>see LRT as playing catch-up. We'll see in the coming years whether we
>regret it -- of course that pretty much comes with having the
>inferiority complex!

I don't see how the LRT could possibly cure the alleged city-wide IC.

>One can see a money grab by downtown interests, or one can see civic
>leaders providing leadership. If there was wrongdoing, then bring on
>the prosecutions. Otherwise, I wish innovators would just focus on
>working within the system to get PRT adopted. Because I don't know
>how you get it adopted by working outside the system.

I'm sure they subscribed to the "doing good and doing well" rationale
that makes a good cover for rampant greed that does not serve the
public interest well.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:38 PM 6/5/2009, you wrote:

>Of course I know it. They promised to fund a new technology
>demonstration that could be PRT. They haven't done anything resembling
>it, and it was dropped from the updated Long Range Plan.

That item was inserted into the RTA legislation as a favor
to a PRT advocate from SeaTac by a well-funded State Senator
It did not come from RTA people and they didn't fight it because they wanted
the RTA legislation to get passed without difficulty. There was no
initiative within
the RTA that I'm aware of and they probably knew they could ignore it
after a while
as there was no one who was likely to sue them about it.

>The unfulfilled commitment is one tool we want to use to convince them
>to look at PRT again. I'd just as soon use it as a carrot instead of a
>stick.

Pretty limp carrot, in my opinion.

[Michael Weidler]

There are 2 parts to the story in Seattle. First, BRT has always been a better option for Seattle. And Seattle is one of those rare places where people actually ride buses. Second, the law which created Sound Transit REQUIRED it to invest in PRT. No, they weren't required to replace the LRT with PRT, but using it for the circulators (which are currently scheduled to be streetcars) would have been an acceptable use. --- On Fri, 6/5/09, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 3:38 AM on 6/5/09 1:37 AM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote: I have to disagree . I have been watching this Seattle project to develope for over 10 years, and the decision was made before that, and nothing else was considered. No PRT system ready to go? Where do you come up with that statement? Seattle has refused to look at anything except what some rail lover planned long ago, and I think you know it. San Jose hasn't found there is nothing available, in fact, they have 17 to choose from.  All of them are better than the decision Seattle has made.

At the time that Seattle selected LRT, I really can't think of any alternate systems with credible operating demonstration systems.  There were a lot of wanabe, paper systems, but nothing that public officials and the consulting engineers upon which they could dare stake their engineering and political reputations to select.

I have said to a long time that the chances of anyone selling any new system without having a credible operating demonstrator are nearly nill.  That is precisely why our own company has been working tirelessly and spending a lot of money developing just such a demonstrator system.  Fortunately, we are finally reaching that point.  At the same time ULTra and ToGetThere have managed to do the same thing and both have made some limited recent sales.    As Stanley Markus said, "you can't sell from empty shelves."  That statement applies just as well to advanced transportation systems.    True, Seattle has spent way to much building systems that are likely to have little real value, but at the time, they really had no other credible choice.  It is our job as advanced system developers to now offer them credible alternates for future systems. Kirston Henderson MegaRail®

[Michael Weidler]

To use it as what??? Greg Nickels still has rail fever. Until you can find a way to get rid of that disingenuous politician (the man is a bare faced liar), forget PRT for the Puget Sound area. Hell, even Ron Simms saying "whoa!" in the last election didn't do any good.

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> wrote:

From: Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 12:38 PM

Of course I know it. They promised to fund a new technology demonstration that could be PRT. They haven't done anything resembling it, and it was dropped from the updated Long Range Plan.

The unfulfilled commitment is one tool we want to use to convince them to look at PRT again. I'd just as soon use it as a carrot instead of a stick.

On Jun 5, 11:54 am, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> David - You of all people should know that Sound Transit was and is required to fund advanced transit. The law even specifically names PRT. As far as I know, they have never honored this provision in the slightest. > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> wrote: > > From: Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>

> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 5:09 PM > > The problem with your Attitude is that you are sneering at a local > transit project. Its mission is to provide transit service. So the > agency involved assessed the various technologies and picked one. Yes, > light rail is no where near perfect.  Yes, the PRT community can > legitimately cite the ways PRT was incorrectly portrayed and > evaluated. > > But the fact is that there was no PRT system that was ready to go; and > -- > > *it is not the responsibility of local transit districts to provide > major R&D or startup capital for experimental technologies* > > In fact it is the responsibility of authorities spending tax dollars > to not only pick a technology that most fulfills the project > objectives, but also minimizes financial risk. > > Even though PRT would have met service objectives, the Seattle process > couldn't have selected it because it failed the risk test -- there was > nothing available to buy. While we can criticize the staff who > flunked PRT for capacity reasons, they were right-on as far as the > risk calculation. > > Whose fault is it that PRT systems were not fully tested and ready to > build (not a question). >

> The Seattle LRT exists, the community chose it on the best information > available at the time. Those of us advocating for PRT in Seattle > aren't sneering at it or pretending it doesn't exist, or that PRT will > someday replace it. We are thinking about how PRT can help LRT work > better. Because it's the right thing to do. >

> Anti-rail and anti-government sentiments on a group as small as this > makes it tougher for us. For all of us, whether you believe it or not. >

> On Jun 4, 2:22 pm, "Walter Brewer" <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:> Repeat: Mass transit obsession is a wonder to behold!

> > > Walt Brewer > > >   ----- Original Message -----

> >   From: Jerry Roane > >   To: transport-...@googlegroups.com > >   Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:03 PM

> >   Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride >

> >     >  Walt Brewer > > >     > ----- Original Message ----- > > >     > From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> > >     > To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

> >     > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:27 AM > >     > Subject: [t-i] Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride > > >     > > Initial segment of the initial segment: > > >     > >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/video/seattletimesvideo.ht... >

[Michael Weidler]

It will be interesting to see what happens when they start running out of O&M funds. Why in the world would anyone build something which they KNOW will lose money? (Note: I am not talking about your system. I am talking about LRT.)

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 1:07 PM

on 6/5/09 1:33 PM, Mr_Grant at da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us wrote:

> One can see a money grab by downtown interests, or one can see civic > leaders providing leadership.  If there was wrongdoing, then bring on > the prosecutions. Otherwise, I wish innovators would just focus on > working within the system to get PRT adopted.  Because I don't know > how you get it adopted by working outside the system. >

[Dave Petrie]

For what it's worth, the reason the 1996 Sound Transit light rail was approved and same for the 2008 Sound Transit Phase 2 was approved is that the voting masses were-and still are- fed up with Congestion.

 

With nothing Out There, as they saw it-to mitigate congestion- they were swept into accepting the We Have to Do Something battle cry.

 

The 2008 vote was made up of a lot of youngsters who recently entered the voting pool, even more naive than their parents that the best way to get relief was to go for (conventional) transit, so they (the voting masses) could get their neighbor off the freeway so that they (the voting masses again) could have less congestion.

 

Psychologists who study Group Behavior can explain this better than I. 

 

This was proven by polls that showed only 21% said they would EVER rider it; and nation-wide statistics that only 3% in a typical urban metropolis in the USA regularly commute on buses/rail.

 

I'm sure most of you already know this, but it needs to be emphasized that we have to continue to push for demos of systems that retain the personal mobility of the car while increasing the ease that these vehicles can move about in an uncongested manner.

 

 And the Time Is Ripe.

 

Anyone familiar-particularly EE's- with the Tesla-Edison AC vs DC debate, will figure out that increased Pressure(analogous to higher voltage, like 350 KV) can push a lot more power through a thin (skinny) wire than 220 volts can. This is the core "secret" of why well-engineered Dual Mode will prevail.

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Weidler

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Michael Weidler]

For years and years we've been at it. And David and the other members of SoundPRT are still at it. I've been gone from the Seattle area for several years and gave up on it totally last fall when the morons who live there voted for the newest transit boondoggle. This is NOT a case of ignorance as the facts were made clearly and abundantly available. It is a case of gross stupidity. And as the saying goes "you can't fix stupid." --- On Fri, 6/5/09, Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:

From: Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Friday, June 5, 2009, 2:35 PM

PRT certaily fits within the gross definition, although the fundamental on demand directly to random destinations is omitted. Has anyone asked politely for a progress report on this requirement? Including why PRT installations have not been recommended? Has anyone politely offered alternatives to other needs than this corridor? Walt Brewer

----- Original Message ----- From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 4:17 PM Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

"The RTA will work with the community and the private sector to take part in a demonstration of personal rapid transit (PRT) or other technologies. PRT is an experimental type of automated transit consisting of small cars running on a guideway carrying two to six passengers per car. The demonstration could show how PRT or other new technologies could be appropriate investments in future transit system phases." http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/SoundTransit1996SoundMovePlan.pdf

On Jun 5, 1:05 pm, "Walter Brewer" <catca...@verizon.net> wrote: > How well is PRT defined? > Maybe they argue LRT meets the specification? > > Walt Brewer >

> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Weidler > To: transport-...@googlegroups.com > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 2:54 PM > Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride >

> David - You of all people should know that Sound Transit was and is > required to fund advanced transit. The law even specifically names PRT. As > far as I know, they have never honored this provision in the slightest. > > --- On Thu, 6/4/09, Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> wrote: > > From: Mr_Grant <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>

> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Jerry Roane > > To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

> > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 5:03 PM > > Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride >

> > > ----- Original Message ----- >

> > > From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us> > > > To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:27 AM > > > Subject: [t-i] Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride > > > > > Initial segment of the initial segment: > > > > >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/flatpages/video/seattletimesvideo.ht... > > > > > If link doesn't >

> ... > > read more »

[Walter Brewer]

I don't know the answer to your question, but name one that does make money!

Include capital costs please.

 

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Michael Weidler

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Walter Brewer]

Unfortunately in the vast world that does not know about PRT, but wants personal transportion, the wasted land use image prevents roads consistent with demand. A narrow LRT line is compared with an 8 lane freeway without explantion that in the real world passenger-miles per acre of right of way are no better for LRT. Come to Buffalo to see how adequate road investment works.

 

 Walt Brewer

[Dave Petrie]

Walt:

 

I really don't understand what you are saying below.

 

PRT does not provide personal door-to-door transportation, but you understand that such is what "the vast world-- wants".

 

We all understand that an "LRT line", with all the seats filled that has headways as short as subways in dense European cities, will provide high throughput of pedestrians.  

 

But in a typical low-density American metropolis, these rail-borne pedestrians would be stranded thousands of feet or miles from their homes or workplace.

 

Atlanta (aligned like a + sign, 27 NS miles, 24 EW) is a typical example of a mature light rail system that provides no discernable congestion relief. That is where we are heading with Sound Transit Phases 1 & 2.

 

The point I was making by the electric power-line analogy in the last paragraph is that by combining the Best of Both Worlds (personal cars and transit), we can eliminate freeway congestion as we know it. That is, a car that can be efficiently transported at high-density on a single lane of an existing freeway is the Silver Bullet that most transportation legislators joke about never being available; but will be generally applied to the countries larger cities once they personally witness it.  A government-funded demonstration will do that. And this 214-mile system (see attached) could be constructed with a fraction of the money being spent on Sound Transit, by the time it is completed.

[Walter Brewer]

I've lost the message. Are these my words?

 

"PRT does not provide personal door-to-door transportation, but you understand that such is what "the vast world-- wants".

 

I believe "LRT does not provide-------" Maybe I made a typo?

 

To clarify however using a broard definition of PRT, I believe PRT in whatever form of implementaion is not successful unless it provides door to door service. The system you describe is consistent. Other forms may not be quite as convenient as a few steps from garage to inside the house autos now provide, but much closer than provided usually by mass transit choices.

[Dave Petrie]

OK.

 

Perhaps the first sentence needs rephrasing/elaboration.

 

I think the point you are trying to make should be expanded to (reiterate the obvious) that Demand now exceeds Capacity of our roads, due to:

 

1) The stunning success of the personal car/highway system, so that almost everyone >16 yo wants/can afford a (used, often handed-down) car.

2) Urban Growth Boundaries and Growth Management Acts are (futilely)trying to mimic the density of cities that have developed around mass transit systems before advent of the auto, so that such will work properly. Our loose immigration policy also has a lot to do with this. 

 

(Thus, increasing roadway capacity by increasing Packing Factor*- similar to the way long-distance electric power transmission was made practical by jacking up the AC voltage with transformers- is the Way to Go.) 

 

* The Automated Highway System (AHS) attempted to do this, but the Fail-Safe technology required (to prevent haystack collisions) is not feasible. 

----- Original Message -----

From: Walter Brewer

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:30 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Michael Weidler]

Dave - kindly get the facts correct. Atlanta does not have a LRT. It has a heavy rail metro type system similar to that installed in Wash DC. --- On Sat, 6/6/09, Dave Petrie <DaveP...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dave Petrie <DaveP...@comcast.net> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, June 6, 2009, 11:51 PM

Walt:   I really don't understand what you are saying below.

PRT does not provide personal door-to-door transportation, but you understand that such is what "the vast world-- wants".

We all understand that an "LRT line", with all the seats filled that has headways as short as subways in dense European cities, will provide high throughput of pedestrians.     But in a typical low-density American metropolis, these rail-borne pedestrians would be stranded thousands of feet or miles from their homes or workplace.   Atlanta (aligned like a + sign, 27 NS miles, 24 EW) is a typical example of a mature light rail system that provides no discernable congestion relief. That is where we are heading with Sound Transit Phases 1 & 2.   The point I was making by the electric power-line analogy in the last paragraph is that by combining the Best of Both Worlds (personal cars and transit), we can eliminate freeway congestion as we know it. That is, a car that can be efficiently transported at high-density on a single lane of an existing freeway is the Silver Bullet that most transportation legislators joke about never being available; but will be generally applied to the countries larger cities once they personally witness it.  A government-funded demonstration will do that. And this 214-mile system (see attached) could be constructed with a fraction of the money being spent on Sound Transit, by the time it is completed.

----- Original Message -----

From: Walter Brewer To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 6:18 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

Unfortunately in the vast world that does not know about PRT, but wants personal transportion, the wasted land use image prevents roads consistent with demand. A narrow LRT line is compared with an 8 lane freeway without explantion that in the real world passenger-miles per acre of right of way are no better for LRT. Come to Buffalo to see how adequate road investment works.    Walt Brewer

----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Petrie To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 9:02 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

For what it's worth, the reason the 1996 Sound Transit light rail was approved and same for the 2008 Sound Transit Phase 2 was approved is that the voting masses were-and still are- fed up with Congestion.   With nothing Out There, as they saw it-to mitigate congestion- they were swept into accepting the We Have to Do Something battle cry.   The 2008 vote was made up of a lot of youngsters who recently entered the voting pool, even more naive than their parents that the best way to get relief was to go for (conventional) transit, so they (the voting masses) could get their neighbor off the freeway so that they (the voting masses again) could have less congestion.   Psychologists who study Group Behavior can explain this better than I.    This was proven by polls that showed only 21% said they would EVER rider it; and nation-wide statistics that only 3% in a typical urban metropolis in the USA regularly commute on buses/rail.   I'm sure most of you already know this, but it needs to be emphasized that we have to continue to push for demos of systems that retain the personal mobility of the car while increasing the ease that these vehicles can move about in an uncongested manner.    And the Time Is Ripe.   Anyone familiar-particularly EE's- with the Tesla-Edison AC vs DC debate, will figure out that increased Pressure(analogous to higher voltage, like 350 KV) can push a lot more power through a thin (skinny) wire than 220 volts can. This is the core "secret" of why well-engineered Dual Mode will prevail.

----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Weidler To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 5:22 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

There are 2 parts to the story in Seattle. First, BRT has always been a better option for Seattle. And Seattle is one of those rare places where people actually ride buses. Second, the law which created Sound Transit REQUIRED it to invest in PRT. No, they weren't required to replace the LRT with PRT, but using it for the circulators (which are currently scheduled to be streetcars) would have been an acceptable use. --- On Fri, 6/5/09, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride

[Mr_Grant]

Well look where the thread has wound up -- statements deriding the
public for voting with low information, being naive, or being stupid.
This is exactly the sort of thing to which I was referring near the
start of the thread:

"It's not just about engineering and efficiency folks, it's about the
politics-driven
world we live in.
You guys need to remember this when talking about your future vision,
and in your marketing. And even in this group -- reading these
messages is open to all, only posting is restricted. Sometimes --
sometimes -- I think the best reason a transportation policymaker
could have for reading this group is to learn about who not to work
with."

I remind you that the ultimate policymaker is The Voter. Even though
I know some of you will disagree about that.

[Dennis Manning]

Good point. Ultimately the success of PRT will depend on the voter.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 9:36 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride


>

[Jerry Schneider]

At 09:36 AM 6/8/2009, D. Gow wrote:

>I remind you that the ultimate policymaker is The Voter. Even though
>I know some of you will disagree about that.

Yes, that's true. The problem is what is offered to the voters and how
it is "marketed".

[Jerry Schneider]

At 10:26 AM 6/8/2009, you wrote:

>Good point. Ultimately the success of PRT will depend on the voter.

If the voter is ever offered a PRT project and a substantial
marketing campaign to go with it.

[Walter Brewer]

Have you ever been to or seen a focus group for getting voter inputs about
new transportation leadership has identified?

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----

From: "Mr_Grant" <da...@kinetic.seattle.wa.us>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 12:36 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride


>

[Walter Brewer]

e.g. focus group.

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Video: Seattle LINK VIP ride


>

[Dennis Manning]

The closest I've been was to a focus group for a BRT project. It was more
about selling BRT than gaining input. The project proponents also use them
to learn where obstacles or problems might come from. The public usually
doesn't know enough to ask questions that haven't already been considered.

[Walter Brewer]

Exactly.