Light rail train to nowhere
Jerry Schneider
will take to watch:
<http://reason.tv/video/show/light-rail>http://reason.tv/video/show/light-rail
Sam
Samuel R. Staley, Ph.D.
Robert W. Galvin Fellow
Director, Urban and Land Use Policy
Reason Foundation
Los Angeles & Washington, DC
Cell: 937.409.9013
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
eph
Rail?).
It's sad to see a city abandoned like that. They don't need
Boondoggle Rail, they need businesses. What does motor city evolve to
when the manufacturing engine moves to China? What do you do when a
large chunk of working class jobs go away? Would spending $500
million on innovating new transit make more sense than laying tracks
for a train to nowhere? There may be an opportunity to innovate PRT
station integration into buildings without disrupting occupants as
would be the case in a growing city. It may be possible to build
pillars and innovate design without disrupting traffic very much. It
could be a showcase for new technology, a place to go and kick the
tires of an innovative transit system, see what works, and see what
doesn't. I think this money would be better spent on something with a
future, otherwise they might as well just dig a big hole and fill it
in again, because that's about all LRT will accomplish there.
F.
Jerry Roane
--
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.
eph
or South-Korea, that North-American workers are too lazy/greedy to do
the job? You don't think re-tooling some automotive industries for
PRT/DM makes sense? I still think the $500,000,000 on Boondoggle Rail
money would be better spent on innovative transit implementations.
You wouldn't establish your company in Detroit for half a billion
dollars of development money? How much more would you need to take 8
miles of Tritrack to in-service level in North-America?
F.
On Oct 14, 11:01 am, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> They need workers who are willing to work for a fair day's pay for a fair
> day's work. Honest work combined with responsible management could pull any
> community out of decay. Detroit is lost at the moment. No choo choo will
> fix what is wrong. The problem is way beyond transportation. When China
> builds all the cars Detroit will need to find a new field of endeavor. No
> car company would want to move there even if it weren't China getting all
> the hands-on work.
>
> Jerry Roane
>
> > .
Marsden Burger
François,
Were it but so simple. L
Detroit based Cabintaxi Corp.
Best wishes,
Marsden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
eph
because they're the right thing to do.
So, you must have priced it out, just for fun, how much money would it
take to cover the 9.3 miles (not 8) of transit with Cabintaxi at an in
service level? Could it be completely built by Detroit workers?
Would there be future economic spin-offs from having a demonstrably
working (again) system?
Jerry R,
My previous post may have come off as antagonistic but wasn't meant to
be. I'd really like to know what you think about it.
F.
> Were it but so simple. :-(
Marsden Burger
Here is an earlier effort that actually gave rise to this present fiasco.
It gave rise to the present idea of the private sector putting in funds.
http://drcurryassociates.net/DetroitPeopleMover2.html
This used the technology already in place rather than trying to inject the
Cabintaxi technology or Light Rail. You would not believe the criticism I
received because I, in the past, was involved with the People Mover
technology. The fact that at the time I had no involvement with Bombardier
or that I had been involved with Light Rail technology as well, was of no
interest. The idea that as a citizen of Detroit I might be interested in
what was good for the city was of little interest to those that want
"transit"; if they think their "transit" is being questioned.
Jerry Roane
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jerry Roane
eph
people of what seems like a logical/easy choice.
So, the "deciders" missed the idea that expanding an automated system
actually reduces operating costs and capital costs, whereas going with
LRT increases both? Is there any rational to this decision I'm
missing or are they just either incompetent or crooks?
On the bright side, I suppose there will be 2 more jobs running the
train every hour and maybe another cleaning the graffiti and oiling
the rusting parts on the expensive behemoths.
Jerry R.,
The "no skills jobs" problem is felt in Ontario too because the
province is heavily dependent on its manufacturing sector. It's a big
problem because a significant portion of any population will be
without a decent income and I'm sure education/skills training alone
will not do it. Anyway, it's not T-I subject as you say.
Interesting point about aviation VS automotive manufacturing, though
cars are going more and more towards aviation materials and
techniques. Maybe it's part of the re-tooling/re-training?
F.
eph
I got a bit distracted there. The idea was to use the $500 million
destined to Boondoggle Rail and use it to create a New/Innovative
transportation system that can create an industry. On that point, the
people mover isn't the right choice since it was never popular despite
a demonstrable version (LR isn't either). I believe even the
Vancouver version is being/has been replaced with Automated "Light"
Rail?
So would it be possible to build the 9.3 mile system for $500 million
or less? Perhaps the people mover infrastructure can be reused/
incorporated into the Cabintaxi approach? If so, it might be worth
presenting the alternative, since citizens tend to balk (as is seen in
the video) at Boondoggle Rail expense.
Another interesting aspect of Detroit is that it is at the tip of the
Windsor to Quebec city corridor and an important node on the NAFTA
superhighway/Nasco corridor. Being on the border, some Canada-US
cooperation would be good since the systems (if they ever get built)
should be compatible (and eventually linked) IMHO.
F.
Jerry Schneider
>Marsden,
>I got a bit distracted there. The idea was to use the $500 million
>destined to Boondoggle Rail and use it to create a New/Innovative
>transportation system that can create an industry. On that point, the
>people mover isn't the right choice since it was never popular despite
>a demonstrable version (LR isn't either). I believe even the
>Vancouver version is being/has been replaced with Automated "Light"
>Rail?
I'm not sure what you mean by "popular". That system was designed to
provide a circulation service to several radial rail lines that never got built
so it's patronage expectations have never been achieved. So if the lack
of patronage is the same as "popular" then you're correct. So far as I know,
the original SkyTrain is still in service but the new Gold line (built for the
Olympics) is Automated LRT.
>So would it be possible to build the 9.3 mile system for $500 million
>or less? Perhaps the people mover infrastructure can be reused/
>incorporated into the Cabintaxi approach? If so, it might be worth
>presenting the alternative, since citizens tend to balk (as is seen in
>the video) at Boondoggle Rail expense.
A very key question. If one had $500 million to spend on the development
of a new advanced transport system, how would one proceed so that a
new industry
could emerge in the Detroit area to service a global market?
Traditionally, one would
start with a competition, select winners, build test facilities and
see if one concept
is superior to the others. That is what the federal government did in
the 1970's.
Is there a better way? Is must one wait for Google or some other
megacorporation to
do it their way? We have several candidates in various states of
development now?
Some claim to be market-ready. What to do? Who should act? I have
tried to interest
various people in Michigan to get something going with no luck. Only
Interstate Traveller
seems to have any traction at all there - despite its rather obvious
difficulties.
Without a solution, we are destined to get more of the same - with
the same poor performance
and very high costs. In just a week, a "solution" has been found to
fund the next (6th) LRT line in
Portland that a week ago was $100 m short.
eph
Both the (1985) Expo Line and (2002) Millenium line (28.9 and 20.3 km)
are still LIM propulsion, so not replaced - it seems the lines
intermix.
The new (2009) Canada line (19.2 km) uses regular "light" rail.
The point was that LIM propulsion seems to have fallen out of favour
and the Detroit People Mover type technology does not seem to be in
demand. Conversely, PRT systems such as those at Heathrow and Masdar
seem to be gaining in "popularity"/demand.
I imagine there are competition rules that get in the way, though the
bailout itself can be seen as a subsidy, anyway...
As a city looking for industry, you could start a competition of sorts
for a transit system that would satisfy certain criteria such as:
- Must cost less than $500 million (cost of tear-down/disposal
included if untested technology?).
- Must meet mobility goals (to be elaborated)
- Technology must be built exclusively in Detroit (for X years).
- Must be deliverable in a set time-frame - implies a certain level of
engineering/certification has or can be reached.
- more ???
On the other hand, since Cabintaxi once had a working system, a
proposal similar to what Boondoggle Rail can deliver should suffice.
A comparative analysis of costs and benefits should make Cabintaxi a
clear winner since it should be cheaper (because it's automated),
provide better service because it's personal transit and can create an
industry if more systems are ordered.
F.
Kirston Henderson
>From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
>To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere
> - Technology must be built exclusively in Detroit (for X years).
> - Must be deliverable in a set time-frame - implies a certain level of
> engineering/certification has or can be reached.
I'm not sure that you are very likely to find a company willing to start
business in Detroit for the same fundamental reason that so many of the
companies once there, moved their production elsewhere. That reason is the
ver dominant labor union situation in which the unavoidable union is going
to demand wages and benefits so high as to make profitable operations in
Detroit impossible.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
Jack Slade
I personally think that progress with new systems will wait for the same spur that produced the space program. If anybody remembers, another Country that America considered "backward" put a small satellite in orbit. A President who did not like being out-classed by this "backward" competitor found out that America was in second place because nobody here had been willing to believe the people here who had been saying "We can do this".
He than set up NASA, gave them money, and the challenge to get to the moon in 10 years, and the rest is history.
Doesn't anybody see the parallel with Transportation? It will happen when some President sees that he is being out-classed by some smaller Country. This has already happened, but he doesn't know it because Vectus and Ultra has not yet created the awe in people that Sputnik did.
|
|
|
|
eph
This is much more detailed than I expected!
I suppose the 9.3 miles isn't particularly well suited to the
technology and some sort of self-guiding scheme for switches would be
needed to make it a driverless, public transit type system, I know
it's not your focus or am I missing a way TriTrack would work in this
situation?
I like the intercity speed, efficiency and low guideway cost of this
system.
Kirston,
That's why all the manufacturing jobs are going to China - no union,
low wages, no pollution control. If one gets $500 million to build a
system and a company in Detroit, the difference in wages must be taken
into account. I suppose that if there is an X year exclusivity
contract and lower priced competition crops up in the interim, some
sales could be lost. On the other hand, if the product is unique and
can deliver value, even with North-American union wages, you've got a
thriving business earlier that can go low-cost when the X year
exclusivity agreement ends. Maybe you're right and it isn't a good
idea.
F.
> > > ubsc...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > > > > .
>
> > > > > For more options, visit this group at
>
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> > > --
>
> > > 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
>
> > > For more options, visit this group athttp://
> > groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > "transport-innovators"
>
>
> read more »
Richard Gronning
Shouldn't it be Donnybrook?
WALTER BREWER
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jack Slade
They even mention the "excitement" of the inner city. It has certainly been that....think of how exciting it is to get held up by a punk with a gun when you are out window-shopping, and how exciting it must be to wonder if your car is still in one piece in the lot where you parked it to go to a movie.
One advantage for the train is they can't steal it. Oops...any bets on that?
|
Jerry Roane
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jerry Schneider
>OK, According to wiki:
>Both the (1985) Expo Line and (2002) Millenium line (28.9 and 20.3 km)
>are still LIM propulsion, so not replaced - it seems the lines
>intermix.
>The new (2009) Canada line (19.2 km) uses regular "light" rail.
OK, thanks for the correction.
>The point was that LIM propulsion seems to have fallen out of favour
>and the Detroit People Mover type technology does not seem to be in
>demand. Conversely, PRT systems such as those at Heathrow and Masdar
>seem to be gaining in "popularity"/demand.
What kind of propulsion is used for the driverless transit systems in the EU?
Do you have any evidence for your "fallen" comment?
>I imagine there are competition rules that get in the way, though the
>bailout itself can be seen as a subsidy, anyway...
>As a city looking for industry, you could start a competition of sorts
>for a transit system that would satisfy certain criteria such as:
>- Must cost less than $500 million (cost of tear-down/disposal
>included if untested technology?).
>- Must meet mobility goals (to be elaborated)
>- Technology must be built exclusively in Detroit (for X years).
>- Must be deliverable in a set time-frame - implies a certain level of
>engineering/certification has or can be reached.
>- more ???
Yes, that could be done rather quickly - if someone with sufficient
money wanted to do it.
>On the other hand, since Cabintaxi once had a working system, a
>proposal similar to what Boondoggle Rail can deliver should suffice.
>A comparative analysis of costs and benefits should make Cabintaxi a
>clear winner since it should be cheaper (because it's automated),
>provide better service because it's personal transit and can create an
>industry if more systems are ordered.
Yes, wouldn't that be wonderful? Who would provide the study money to
update the technology, build it and test it rigorously? Maybe one could get
a piece of the $500 m to do so - where is that money coming from anyway?
Local, state or federal or all of them together?
Jerry Schneider
My impression is that the auto and other unions
in Detroit have been stripped of lots of their clout
as a result of the bankrupcy of GM and sale of
Chrysler to the Italians -- and the subsequent
restructuring of their labor relations. I could
be wrong but I think the situation is far different
from what it was - with the exception of a
considerable amount of know-how in the heads
of some of the people who still live in the area.
And, there is Ford that appears to be doing
quite well in Detroit and elsewhere in the world
(especially Brazil). One would not have to start
with a blank slate --
>Kirston Henderson
>MegaRail® Transportation Systems
>
Frank Randak
Instead, it is a SCAM by the administration to get some votes from people in
need in Michigan.
Too cynical?
Frank Randak
Marsden Burger
F.
You have the basics.
Actually, by expanding the present people mover, that runs all day in a circle and picks up about 5,000 people, down the corridor - running the vehicles "somewhere" and picking up 10,000 - 15,000 people - while still running them all day, the subsidy goes down because it costs no more to run them continually somewhere than continually no where, and more people will pay for the ride to somewhere. (Intentional mind warp!)
Boy what a painful topic, but since it is engaged, here is a view from here, from someone involved in the Detroit People Mover from 1976 on.
AT the same time, this is not fair, if you keep throwing out questions and then off the mark answers, how am I ever going to catch up?
F. Just a quick point, the linear motor technology is not falling out of favor, I think you will find that the next major expansion in Vancouver will also be the same technology - effectively the same as Detroit with upgrades. I know those that think about hardware always think that when a decision is made it has a just logical reason for it. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. Some times the decision is a composite of political wills in which there is no real reason, but it has a good sound to it and it has no logic at all.
Picture a procurement for something like the Canada Line coming due following a management change in one of the suppliers that aggravated the client so that they wanted to be sure of protecting their interest from the change that they saw as uncomfortable. Changes are later made, and the technology issue for later procurements has a bigger part in future procurements than at the last particular point in time. Situations like this happen all over the world, and believing the technology played the largest role is a lack of depth in understanding needed of these very complex bureaucratically encumbered processes.
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jerry Schneider
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:38 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere
At 12:47 PM 10/14/2010, eph wrote:
>Marsden,
>I got a bit distracted there. The idea was to use the $500 million
>destined to Boondoggle Rail and use it to create a New/Innovative
>transportation system that can create an industry. On that point, the
>people mover isn't the right choice since it was never popular despite
>a demonstrable version (LR isn't either). I believe even the
>Vancouver version is being/has been replaced with Automated "Light"
>Rail?
I'm not sure what you mean by "popular". That system was designed to
provide a circulation service to several radial rail lines that never got built
so it's patronage expectations have never been achieved. So if the lack
of patronage is the same as "popular" then you're correct. So far as I know,
the original SkyTrain is still in service but the new Gold line (built for the
Olympics) is Automated LRT.
[Marsden Burger]
The classic thing that everyone says is that the Detroit People Mover was designed to provide a circulation service for future radial lines, however while Detroit may have liked that, that was the public face put on it, something that the professionals involved in the project knew was never going to happen.
There were studies underway that would have in theory produced those radial lines, but again, all of the professionals (system suppliers, construction/planning firms and their consultants, federal, state, and city agency bureaucracies) knew the programs would never be funded, but they all play out their roles for which they are funded – what were they supposed to do turn down government money because they knew it would come to nothing. Therefore, with the solid belief that the future "planned" radial systems had a 10% or less chance of ever being funded, the People Mover became the only job creation project available at that time. The system was disliked by the public because so few of the regional people come into the city, and the project delayed and over ran to the degree that it became a joke politically. Of course, as the project delayed and over ran, it continued to sustain jobs and because it was 80% funded by the fed with the match coming from the State, the City loved it over running, and the State had no problem with it either as it created more tax revenue than what they put in - just the citizenry had a ball laughing at it, and the State and the City could not say that they were profiting from what was perceived as their own incompetency – so they had to complain as well.
The Federal Government had its reason to build the people movers - I know this is now hard to believe, but at the time it was to prove automation and then get on with small vehicle systems. They already knew that Morgantown worked, but because of the political backlash of Morgantown, they needed to find another way to prove automation so they could have a success and move forward. The People Movers were suppose to be that success, then following it, "PRT"! or "High Performance PRT" as they were referring to it. What they did not correctly plan for was an out of control People Mover Program, and the willingness of the Cities, suppliers, and contractors, getting 80% funding, to milk the process to the maximum - not in complicity, just with a common unspoken goal of maximizing their own interest. Hence, the Fed had another political backlash, which coupled with administration changes was the end to US government’s advance transportation efforts.
The locals had their interest to build the People Mover, they wanted the economic stimulus for a struggling region, and it was already struggling in the 70’s. Transit in the 70’s, and still in large part today, is, for someone else to ride, who cares what it is as long as we get federal $s for job creation. Colman Young did not mind a transit system in his town as long as someone paid for it and it was not too big and ugly “like the Chicago Loop”. He did not care what it did, “Sure make it a one lane system, as long as it is not ugly!”
[Marsden Burger]
Ok, lets be very clear on one thing, there is no $500 million coming to Michigan or Detroit that could possibly be used for anything other than what it is allocated for and while it might be fun to speculate on how that much money could be used, as the sensationalist reporter did on the streets of Detroit, it is a waste of all of our time.
The chance that Detroit will ever build this light rail line is probably about 15%. There are many problems with it from a technical aspect, but more importantly from a funding aspect – unclear local match, no operating funds source, no logical expectation that the ridership levels {to come out of a yet uncompleted EIS} will raise it high enough on the feds list to receive funds.
So how would Cabintaxi provide these services – we would not have a snowball chance of even getting in line to do it because we lack the corporate strength for any city to consider us seriously. We simply possess the most advanced urban transit system in the world. That and a multi-billion dollar company will get the attention of anyone – even without the most advanced urban transit system in the world, the multi-billion dollar company will get the attention – look at Google-Car and the aerial bike way.
Our government’s inability to overcome the damage of administration change on long term transportation system development leaves the only avenue open for new transportation systems in the United States to the private sector.
If you have not seen this, look at this CityFix item and my comment to it.
http://thecityfix.com/personal-rapid-transit-in-unexpected-places/
The following quote is mine from that article comment: I misspelled Mr. Page.
“Second, thank you for having the courage in effect to point out that just because someone has money, derived in mass from unrelated activity, it is no reason to think that they will have understanding in everything. The gulf between what is possible in transportation to improve the quality of life in our cities, and what is presently being done through our government process is so huge, that relatively minor investment guided by those that understand transportation technology development issues could rapidly change our cities for the better. Few are willing to point out that the emperor has no clothes, clearly Mr. Paige’s activities in this field so far, while surely well meaning, are those of a dilettante whose dabbling actually serves to retard advancement.”
There are few professionals in the field of advanced transportation systems, because in reality, no field exists. Clearly with technology available like Cabintaxi that can be quickly redeveloped at effectively 0% risk, and Transrapid, that technically can be deployed immediately, any moneyed group with interest in getting into this field has an excellent opportunities – we are looking for partners. Google behind Cabintaxi in Southeast Michigan and we can do a lot to rebuild Detroit.
Jerry Schneider
linear motors:
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/transportation-systems/driverless-systems/advanced-rapid-transit--art-?docID=0901260d8000a648
eph
On Oct 14, 7:45 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> At 02:28 PM 10/14/2010, you wrote:
>
> >OK, According to wiki:
> >Both the (1985) Expo Line and (2002) Millenium line (28.9 and 20.3 km)
> >are still LIM propulsion, so not replaced - it seems the lines
> >intermix.
> >The new (2009) Canada line (19.2 km) uses regular "light" rail.
>
> OK, thanks for the correction.
>
> >The point was that LIM propulsion seems to have fallen out of favour
> >and the Detroit People Mover type technology does not seem to be in
> >demand. Conversely, PRT systems such as those at Heathrow and Masdar
> >seem to be gaining in "popularity"/demand.
>
> What kind of propulsion is used for the driverless transit systems in the EU?
> Do you have any evidence for your "fallen" comment?
vehicles instead of LIM based for the Canada Line is an indication.
The Detroit People Mover isn't being extended, thought there may be
other reasons. Vectus offers a LIM and a rotary motor version. It
seems to me that the efficiency of LIM is lower than rotary motors or
LSM and energy conservation is an important goal. Lastly, LIM are
more expensive than rotary motors.
This article made it sound like the Evergreen Line could have gone
either way.
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=cb1afbd8-f744-4319-9098-8a35236437e4&k=33299
"The propulsion system for VECTUS PRT can be selected in collaboration
with the client or involved stakeholders, taking into account their
requirements for energy use, environment, local climatic conditions,
etc. This is possible because the VECTUS control system is completely
independent of any specific propulsion system, and VECTUS can supply
both linear motor technology as well as conventional drive systems."
http://www.vectusprt.se/system/propulsion.php
You seem to know there are many LIM systems being deployed in the EU?
I was not aware of any, but I haven't been following that technology
closely.
>
> >I imagine there are competition rules that get in the way, though the
> >bailout itself can be seen as a subsidy, anyway...
> >As a city looking for industry, you could start a competition of sorts
> >for a transit system that would satisfy certain criteria such as:
> >- Must cost less than $500 million (cost of tear-down/disposal
> >included if untested technology?).
> >- Must meet mobility goals (to be elaborated)
> >- Technology must be built exclusively in Detroit (for X years).
> >- Must be deliverable in a set time-frame - implies a certain level of
> >engineering/certification has or can be reached.
> >- more ???
>
> Yes, that could be done rather quickly - if someone with sufficient
> money wanted to do it.
>
> >On the other hand, since Cabintaxi once had a working system, a
> >proposal similar to what Boondoggle Rail can deliver should suffice.
> >A comparative analysis of costs and benefits should make Cabintaxi a
> >clear winner since it should be cheaper (because it's automated),
> >provide better service because it's personal transit and can create an
> >industry if more systems are ordered.
>
> Yes, wouldn't that be wonderful? Who would provide the study money to
> update the technology, build it and test it rigorously? Maybe one could get
> a piece of the $500 m to do so - where is that money coming from anyway?
> Local, state or federal or all of them together?
commit to it's success. If it fails, it's no worse than digging a big
hole and filling it up again (or spending $ on LRT). It's stimulus
money.
9.3 miles makes a nice test system. It can be argued that a shorter
system, like the People Mover risks being seen as a toy instead of a
useful transportation service. Innovation can come later if the goal
is to start up a company, provide jobs and try to kick-start
prosperity more than solve a transit problem (which doesn't seem to
exist based on the video).
"The first-phase of the project, which will run from Hart Plaza up to
the New Center, is being backed by $125 million in contributions from
private philanthropists and foundations, including Penske, Mike
Ilitch, Dan Gilbert and Kresge. DDOT is expected to put up $55
million and, thanks to a nifty Congressional agreement and New Starts
Program grants, the federal government is expected cover the bulk of
the remainder."
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/10/a_boondoggle_reason_tv_blasts.html
eph
to sell more rubber tired systems than LIM systems?
LIM ART:
Reference Projects
* Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (1998)
*
New York, USA (2003)
*
Vancouver, Canada (2002)
*
Yongin, South Korea (future)
APM (rubber tire):
Reference Projects
*
Atlanta, USA
*
Beijing, China
*
Bukit Panjang, Singapore
*
Dallas - Fort Worth, USA
*
Denver, USA
*
Frankfurt, Germany
*
Guangzhou, China
*
London Gatwick, UK
*
London Heathrow, UK
*
Las Vegas, USA
*
Madrid, Spain
*
Miami, USA
*
Phoenix, USA
*
San Francisco, USA
*
Seattle-Tacoma, USA
*
Tampa, USA
Marsden,
I'm tired today, so maybe got a bit carried away by the money counted
in Billions thrown at LRT projects - can't believe it.
Reality can be harsh, but sometimes, it's unexpectedly good. Things
you think will never happen do.
The gov't is spreading money around, and even if the money is only
there because of LRT lobbyists efforts, public outcry combined with a
better alternative can get desired results. One thing is certain, if
there isn't an alternative presented to taxpayers, nothing good will
happen except rant videos.
I suppose not knowing any better makes it easier to be optimistic. If
the government's intent was to get to PRT by creating collective
transit vehicles, maybe that wasn't the best approach? I still
believe Cabintaxi (even without updates) would be much better than LRT
(Boondoggle Rail).
F.
On Oct 14, 8:12 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> Bombardier's latest product - Innovia Advanced Rapid Transit - uses
Jerry Roane
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Marsden Burger
F.
Cabintaxi is better than LRT. It always has been.
The LIM systems are always better for large transit systems, but they are relatively new and the conventional transit world does not change quickly. The difference in motor efficiency is meaningless compared to the reduction in labor for the repair of gear trains, the elimination of wheel flats etc. - also for snow operations. Another aspect of conventional rail and through the wheel drives is the amazing loss of propulsion electricity by using the running rails for the return. This loss again if far greater than the loss from the linear motor power.
As far as your list, number of sales of different types of technology have more to do with the strength of the company. "Nobody gets fired for hiring IBM." That is the reality - especially in government. When you look at airports, many of the systems were sold by Westinghouse before they had any competition. UTDC was the first competition with a lim, and I was responsible for the US airport marketing of that system. We had a difficult time competing with Westinghouse as they had in-place airport systems, and we did not. Also, we were selling a system designed for larger urban transit, and they were marketing a system that had a far smaller market nich - it was hard to take a system with a control technology that was designed for and could handle the entire Vancouver transit system, and downsize it to operate a simple airport shuttle and have it be cost competitive. That put us at a solid market disadvantage. Company credibility and price had far more to do with the sale than the rubber tires or though the wheel drive.
Through the wheel drives will make it vary hard for small systems to ever get to 3 second separations, and they are not going to do it in northern climates. Just because you read something, it is not necessarily the case. I have been doing this stuff for forty years. I would like to believe that I am still optimistic, it is just when I see people running their heads against a wall I know they will not break down, yet there is an easy way around if they would listen - but they usually will not. Especially if they have been given responsibility in an area where they have no experience - which for government leaders, happens more often than not.
The UMTA R&D approach was first to demonstrate that automation was technically feasible, and that people would accept it. If they could not do that than PRT and GRT differences were meaningless. They hoped when that was accomplished, then they could moved to more effective systems within automation. What they did not expect was that it was going to take them twenty five years to carry out the programs to prove that automation would be accepted, and when they did finally get there, they had their programs disbanded by a government structure that does not allow long-term continuity in development. If it has not worked, something must be wrong, out the door after a short time. New broom sweeps clean, and the new administration has their inexperienced people to appoint, who need a year or two to be trained by the in-place career technocrats - if they were lucky enough not to have been promoted too high and broomed out too by the new administration. Again, the private sector is our only hope in the US.
I am not a PRT fan - per se. I believe that it may very well be the final system level, but until than, I know that the 12 passenger vehicles are less expensive than PRT and can move more people in the initial stages of network development. That is a huge advantage over PRT. I think the US government also had the same approach, lets get something started and build on it - best though if you can do it in four years. J
Best wishes,
Marsden
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:10 PM
To: transport-innovators
Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere
Not sure if reference projects are an exhaustive list, but they seem
--
Kirston Henderson
On Oct 14, 2010, at 5:26 PM, eph wrote:
>
> Kirston,
> That's why all the manufacturing jobs are going to China - no union,
> low wages, no pollution control. If one gets $500 million to build a
> system and a company in Detroit, the difference in wages must be taken
> into account. I suppose that if there is an X year exclusivity
> contract and lower priced competition crops up in the interim, some
> sales could be lost. On the other hand, if the product is unique and
> can deliver value, even with North-American union wages, you've got a
> thriving business earlier that can go low-cost when the X year
> exclusivity agreement ends. Maybe you're right and it isn't a good
> idea.
I already know that we can build MicroWay™ or MegaWay™ systems down
here in Texas where union shops are rare and you can get things built
for reasonable rates. This little fact was evident when we went out
for bids for major guideway elements both locally and up in the rust
belt.
Kirston
Dennis Manning
Jack Slade
What I remember is that it was a matter of National Pride, that it seemed to show the Russians ahead of the US in rocket technology, that sparked a race to do better. I wonder what happened to National Pride? I haven't heard it mentioned since the onset of the Hippie Generation. Remember them? They were the ones who were sure they could do everything better than we had done it. Isn't it time for somebody to say "Show Me".?.
Jack Slade
--- On Thu, 10/14/10, WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:
Jack Slade
What I remember is that it was a matter of National Pride, that it seemed to show the Russians ahead of the US in rocket technology, that sparked a race to do better. I wonder what happened to National Pride? I haven't heard it mentioned since the onset of the Hippie Generation. Remember them? They were the ones who were sure they could do everything better than we had done it. Isn't it time for somebody to say "Show Me".?.
Jack Slade
--- On Thu, 10/14/10, WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:
Jack Slade
Jack Slade
--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jack Slade
When something is first invented, who the hell are you going to get to study it, or certify it? NOBODY ELSE KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT IT!, evcept for the builder and inventor. Aren't you just putting stumbling blocks in the path of any new invention? And how does somebody who doesn't know anything about any item "Certify" it? All he can do, if he was an honest person(which is hard to find nowadays) is say"I don't know much about this, so I can't recommend it". Cant you see that this is what is killing everything that is not produced by a Major Corporation?
Example: When I first moved into Toronto Air Traffic Control there was a barometer mounted above my sector, but I was told not to use it, because it had not been "Certified" so we had to keep phoning the Met Section for updated altimiter settings to transmit to pilots. This went on for about a year. Then, one Saturday morning, a guy came down from the Met Section, read the barometer, phoned back to his workplace and compared the 2 readings, and said "OK, it's good, go ahead and use it". Any of us could have done this a year earlier.
If this isn't STUPIDITY, please give me another definition.
Jack Slade
--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael Weidler
| I watched the PBS which was referenced in the Reason video. It's available at http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/beyond-the-motor-city/video/939/ Most of it is about Detroit, but part of it was about HSR and Spain. Spain is a little bit smaller than TX. Spain has spent $200 BILLION on their HSR so far. So for $200 Billion we can outfit TX. Imagine how much it will take to cover the rest of the country. |
--- On Wed, 10/13/10, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote: |
|
Date: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 8:39 PM |
|
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
| So Lockheed has a major engineer union that you were a member of which is how you know so much about unions? And this union, of course, ran Lockheed into the ground. Did you know that the wages and benefits in the non-union auto plants in the south are very much the same as in the northern union plants. One of the reasons for this is the existence of the unions. Capital has almost always exploited labor. The greedy bastards have always been willing to pay as little as they can get away with - who cares if it's not a living wage. Of course the CEO can't get by on less than a few million$ per year. Unions are there to help us poor slaves. We now get a look at the books and a voice so we get a reasonable share of the pie. --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> wrote: |
|
eph
On Oct 15, 12:34 am, Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> Cabintaxi is better than LRT. It always has been.
>
> The LIM systems are always better for large transit systems, but they are
> relatively new and the conventional transit world does not change quickly.
> The difference in motor efficiency is meaningless compared to the reduction
> in labor for the repair of gear trains, the elimination of wheel flats etc.
> - also for snow operations. Another aspect of conventional rail and through
> the wheel drives is the amazing loss of propulsion electricity by using the
> running rails for the return. This loss again if far greater than the loss
> from the linear motor power.
the track to get away from transmission loss (or provide the return
path). If we are comparing to LRV, your points hold.
>
> As far as your list, number of sales of different types of technology have
> more to do with the strength of the company. "Nobody gets fired for hiring
> IBM." That is the reality - especially in government. When you look at
> airports, many of the systems were sold by Westinghouse before they had any
> competition. UTDC was the first competition with a lim, and I was
> responsible for the US airport marketing of that system. We had a difficult
> time competing with Westinghouse as they had in-place airport systems, and
> we did not. Also, we were selling a system designed for larger urban
> transit, and they were marketing a system that had a far smaller market nich
> - it was hard to take a system with a control technology that was designed
> for and could handle the entire Vancouver transit system, and downsize it to
> operate a simple airport shuttle and have it be cost competitive. That put
> us at a solid market disadvantage. Company credibility and price had far
> more to do with the sale than the rubber tires or though the wheel drive.
>
> Through the wheel drives will make it vary hard for small systems to ever
> get to 3 second separations, and they are not going to do it in northern
> climates. Just because you read something, it is not necessarily the case.
> I have been doing this stuff for forty years. I would like to believe that
> I am still optimistic, it is just when I see people running their heads
> against a wall I know they will not break down, yet there is an easy way
> around if they would listen - but they usually will not. Especially if they
> have been given responsibility in an area where they have no experience -
> which for government leaders, happens more often than not.
factor in BWS and Vectus (for example) does have a rail brake. Their
system with regular motors may not be workable in snow, but other
designs cover the running surfaces or use a grid for the running
surface.
>
> The UMTA R&D approach was first to demonstrate that automation was
> technically feasible, and that people would accept it. If they could not do
> that than PRT and GRT differences were meaningless. They hoped when that
> was accomplished, then they could moved to more effective systems within
> automation. What they did not expect was that it was going to take them
> twenty five years to carry out the programs to prove that automation would
> be accepted, and when they did finally get there, they had their programs
> disbanded by a government structure that does not allow long-term continuity
> in development. If it has not worked, something must be wrong, out the door
> after a short time. New broom sweeps clean, and the new administration has
> their inexperienced people to appoint, who need a year or two to be trained
> by the in-place career technocrats - if they were lucky enough not to have
> been promoted too high and broomed out too by the new administration.
> Again, the private sector is our only hope in the US.
Rail.
>
> I am not a PRT fan - per se. I believe that it may very well be the final
> system level, but until than, I know that the 12 passenger vehicles are less
> expensive than PRT and can move more people in the initial stages of network
> development. That is a huge advantage over PRT. I think the US government
> also had the same approach, lets get something started and build on it -
Right. If you are trying to replace LRT, Cabintaxi with GRT and PRT
would work. There may be a market for PRT as a premium service too.
Marsden Burger
I have had this discussion a good while ago on this blog. I will look it up and resend it.
In general, if you were thinking two different technologies you would probably be correct. Cabintaxi PRT and Cabintaxi small vehicle-GRT run on the same guideway.
I will find the posts, but it will be later this evening.
Besst wishes,
Marsden
From: john.m...@comcast.net
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:37:07 -0700
Richard Gronning
Why?
Because unionized Sweden has a minimum wage of about $35. You don't need to tip.
95% of blue-collar workers are union members and 80% of white-collar workers are union workers.
A thought ran through my mind, "..And Sweden is lending money to the U.S. Hmmm..."
At one time the Germans has 35% of their labor force unionized. 35% for Japan too (Republican Douglas Mac Arthur promoted it because it was the American thing to do.)
America has never had more than 12% of the labor force in unions. It's MUCH lower now...
Just a perspective....
Dick
On 10/15/2010 5:51 AM, Michael Weidler wrote:
So Lockheed has a major engineer union that you were a member of which is how you know so much about unions? And this union, of course, ran Lockheed into the ground.
Did you know that the wages and benefits in the non-union auto plants in the south are very much the same as in the northern union plants. One of the reasons for this is the existence of the unions.
Capital has almost always exploited labor. The greedy bastards have always been willing to pay as little as they can get away with - who cares if it's not a living wage. Of course the CEO can't get by on less than a few million$ per year. Unions are there to help us poor slaves. We now get a look at the books and a voice so we get a reasonable share of the pie.
WALTER BREWER
USA.
However the nation's leadership knew long befor and were taking steps to
catch up with an unexpected threat so soon by the Soviet's ICBM
development.
They did, but we didn't have ICBM's in 1957
In that era "practical" ICBMs were made possible by two stage nuclear
payloads which we demonstrated first, but Soviets applied earlier.
And you raise another parallel with the need for national level more
vigorous attention to transportation.
Also addressing Jerry Schneiders message questioning military leadership for
what I termed "hi-tech" complex technology driven system developments at
national level.
The Soviet rapid exploitation of rocket science for weapons, especially
ICBM's that made USA homeland vulnerable to nuclear attack w/o defense for
the first time, caused a major re-think of R & D development process and
leadership
In the Air Force case a dedicated program office was getting stared just
before Sputnik. It was a military-civilian team with all resources under
it's leadership to catch up with weapons, and some orbiting intelligence
capabilities closely related. The latter accelerated by the embarrassing
Gary Powers incident.
Simply put business as usual that had evolved from aircraft developments and
government program offices was deficient.
Unlike transportation's politically motivated decision process, the military
team sought quantitative rational for best design performance at acceptable
cost. With the help of dedicated civilion team member organizations, it
developed teaming with industry to carry out the R & D phases, then into
production and system demostration and deployment.
It developed industry eager for new concepts instead of more of the same.
There is nothing magic about putting on a uniform to create a superior
approach such as this. The civilion component supplied the continuity and
technology in depth. The military members usually had technical degrees, and
good expeience for the financial management aspects.
Yes this is different from normal military operations with standard
equipment.
And the transportation community customer is different than the monolithic
operating commands.
But all in all the same reasons that led to this militry "culture" of
objectivity apply to transportation today. But as stated those nuclear
weapons are not staring us in the face in the transportation case.
Jerry Roane
--
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.
Dennis Manning
Good point re certification. It's a catch 22. You have to get certified to
operate but those that do the certifying don't know enough to certify PRT.
Perhaps it's one of those hurdles that a Coalition of Cities ala Kompass
might tackle. I heard in California that it might be as many as five
different agencies have to certify a PRT project. It's a problem all
potential PRT suppliers will face. It might be one of those rare items where
competing PRT suppliers can work together.
Or am I making a mountain out of a mole hill?
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jack Slade" <skytr...@rogers.com>
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 12:24 AM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Richard Gronning
I came to the conclusion at one time that if a union were really interested in preserving a member's job, then it would be also interested in the longevity of the company where its members were employed. I saw this in action when our pilots union took pay cuts and allowed a bending of negotiated rules in order for NWA to survive. In fairness to the members, we took NWA stock. It was fair! The management people took the same pay cut.
I also saw fair negotiations by the mechanics union being pushed aside. The national union came in and ousted the local (responsible) negotiators. The locals knew the situation with the company, but the national union had no responsibility for either the local union or the company. Or, it seemed that way to me.
I think that the unions are still in the first half of the 20th C. It's a problem...
Dick
Kirston Henderson
So Lockheed has a major engineer union that you were a member of which is how you know so much about unions? And this union, of course, ran Lockheed into the ground.
Did you know that the wages and benefits in the non-union auto plants in the south are very much the same as in the northern union plants. One of the reasons for this is the existence of the unions.
Capital has almost always exploited labor. The greedy bastards have always been willing to pay as little as they can get away with - who cares if it's not a living wage. Of course the CEO can't get by on less than a few million$ per year. Unions are there to help us poor slaves. We now get a look at the books and a voice so we get a reasonable share of the pie.
Sorry, but you are wrong again! I wonder if you are one of those rust belt workers to priced themselves out of jobs.
The only unions that Lockheed had were those in the factory and some classes of office workers. There was no engineer union and I was never a member of any union! I was always paid well and treated as a professional. (A lot more than the union members in the factory.) I never felt exploited by "capital."
From time to time, I had to deal with members of the union in the shop and I can assure you that most of them spent far too much time worrying about who was to do what and many of them really didn't work very hard because it was almost impossible for the company to fire people who failed to produce much because they knew that the union would give the company too much grief.
The shop union kept striking for higher and higher wages and the company was forced to give in far too much. The end result is that the company finally contracted out most of the production work to other smaller companies that operated with lower cost and had workers who did a better job and the number of union workers in the plant were reduced to a pretty small number.
Marsden Burger
Dennis,
Still between other things, but took a second to find this past post. Clearly, I have stated most of this again recently, but the facts have not changed.
However memories understandably, grow shorter, and the realities of the pressures on the existing efforts, remind us that everything old can be new, and in this case, the Cabintaxi approaches, developed by well meaning real world transit knowledgeable engineers, had and have solid basis in real world transit integration.
I believe this post is well worth reading again and considering; where LHR is; where Masdar is; what the possibilities are going to look like for small vehicle systems in a year of two; and where Cabintaxi was, and what it can be with effectively no engineering development risk.
Best wishes,
Marsden
----- Original Message -----
From: Marsden Burger
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:50 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Mike C: Re: Proposed GRT/PRT system
Mike,
Any time you would like to know something about Cabintaxi, within limits, you are always welcome to ask.
Here are some answers to your questions.
We have worked in the private sector because there is no market in the public sector - this is now, maybe, changing, but we still look to own and operate systems, not sell hardware.
We are nearly dormant - we hope not permanently dormant. We have a network of engineers willing to work on projects. We can have a simple shuttle system running in 24 months. We have proposed on projects as low as $3 million for the installation of a simple shuttle system. From such installations, a full PRT system could grow if that was the plan from the start.
The over and under approach has always been better for urban applications than the single level, but the single level hype in the English speaking PRT world has never really looked at over and under in detail. Why does anyone think we would lead with an over and under system if a single level approach was better!!?? We have two single level PRT systems!! Sorry, I think I have said that before.
Oh yea, about those boxy vehicles... Has anyone noticed the newer more advanced BART vehicles? They eliminated the sleek vehicle, and made only "boxy" front ends. In transit, form does follow function. If new concept systems ever find a foot hold, look for them to later evolve into the more advance form, like Cabintaxi or BART. Not saying I like the look, but I do like safe operable systems, and we are more than willing to turn a group of design students loose on a re-do, giving them the parameters of what is important to make systems safe and operable - do not be surprise that anyone understanding the real world operating issues will come up with similar systems.
The upper and lower systems are two independent systems - that is correct. Together they provide bi-directional operation on a single beam. This allows bi-directional operation without clover leafs in the air.
It is indeed counterintuitive to the single level approach and requires more thought to understand - it allows a simple logical approach of taking the shortest path to and, back from, your destination station, while providing double the system capacity per length of structure. The platform level is selected when you input your destination. Generally all stations can be reached by either level, but the system selects the most effective.
The "Y" turn eliminates the "clover leaf" in the air, an unacceptable feature that was part of the reason for stopping the large Denver PRT program in the 70's, which is shown on the cover of Jack's Irving's book, "Fundamentals of PRT." The "Y" turn also leads to the looping characteristic of PRT. The over-and-under allows bi-directional operation to still escape the clover leaf requirement while giving direct "to and from" access to stations in a network. See the comparison of a single level bi-directional operation with that of the space requirements for an over and under turn shown in the lower row below.
Cabintaxi, utilizing vehicles of the same cross section of seated passenger, can work with vehicles of different lengths, and types (freight and passengers) sharing the guideway at the same time. Separating the levels into different types of systems can work for some types of applications, but is questionable for passenger service in a network because the return process would be different than the out-bound process.
The real world choices between small vehicle PRT and GRT are not so clear. I do not know how many of you have looked at the study that I attached earlier, but here are some basics again: (Real world passenger demand modeling form a real community using actually operating characteristics of a system that can actually be built. Still it is not meant to say that any simulation is perfect, but simulation is the best we can do short of operational data.)
Here is a PRT system layout:
Here is a GRT layout over the same area:
Total passenger boardings per average work day for:
PRT 144,000
GRT 119,400
Total number of stations:
PRT 77
GRT 55
Total Number of vehicles in operation at the peak hour:
PRT 5,100 Total fleet - 5,474
GRT 403 Total fleet - 484
Total Guideway length
PRT 49 km
GRT 36 km
Capital Investment
PRT DM 774,490,000
GRT DM 385,320,000
Operating Cost
PRT DM 39,400,000 per year
GRT DM 13,770,000 per year
This is in Hamburg, in a major city neighborhood with 135,000 inhabitants, 63,000 jobs, and 406,000 person trips per day.
The study finds in favor of PRT for this community, but it is clear, that the GRT system is a dramatic improvement over conventional transit, and the implementation process using GRT that can convert to PRT, makes the introduction of systems in a step by step process more accomplishable than starting a total PRT network from scratch.
Look at the fleet sizes and think of the operational and maintenance differences to start up a network.
Look at the stations and think of the cost of "off line" verses "on line" - needed for every off line station, 100 meters of structure plus two switch sections, the most costly part of the guideway.
A GRT 12 passenger vehicle can operate in a PRT mode with a flip of a switch. There is little increase in operating cost as the accel/decel only happens (in general) one time in a trip and the frontal area of the vehicle becomes the chief factor in energy consumption. This is from actual operating data.
Again, PRT appears superior over GRT, but no where near the level of the superiority of small vehicle GRT over conventional transit, and in this case, GRT can evolve into PRT; whereas PRT has a hard time starting a network large enough to make it effective. Further, PRT has no capital advantages over small vehicle GRT - guideway costs higher, fleet costs higher, maintenance costs higher. PRT has superior service that should be more desired by the market, as born out in the above study, but the process to get to PRT is best accomplished by small vehicle GRT. Which is why this was the process selected by the Hamburg authorities and the supplying companies to initiate the Hamburg project.
You can find the US Government documentation of the Cabintaxi system through Jerry's web site. Further questions I am happy to respond to.
Best wishes,
Marsden Burger
Cabintaxi Corporation
Dennis Manning
eph
quickly?
In those cases, the people doing the certification must be faced with
different and unknown "systems". So how do they manage?
F.
On Oct 15, 11:43 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> Good point re certification. It's a catch 22. You have to get certified to
> operate but those that do the certifying don't know enough to certify PRT.
>
> Perhaps it's one of those hurdles that a Coalition of Cities ala Kompass
> might tackle. I heard in California that it might be as many as five
> different agencies have to certify a PRT project. It's a problem all
> potential PRT suppliers will face. It might be one of those rare items where
> competing PRT suppliers can work together.
>
> Or am I making a mountain out of a mole hill?
>
> Dennis
>
> --------------------------------------------------
Marsden Burger
Dennis,
In the past, the Milpitas situation was presented to us, and we did offer to get seriously involved, exploring the installing a private system in that shuttle situation which could evolve into a larger network. When we express interest in a privately funded project, contact was dropped from their side. We came away with the assumption there was no interest in the private sector owning and operating a system that required no government funding – governmental control appeared to be a requirement. We wish them well in their efforts.
The $3 million figure was not that project, but one in Denmark where the customer wanted a bid.
Is the $3m shuttle PRT or GRT scale? Dennis, for what ever reason you do not seem to be taking this in – there is no difference in the guideway for a 3 passenger Cabintaxi system, a 6 passenger Cabintaxi system, a 12 passenger Cabintaxi system, or an 18 passenger Cabintaxi system; if the system is going to be part of a network – as long as the system is for seated vehicles with a three passenger cross section. If you go to standing passenger GRT, which is not part of this discussion as I understand it, then yes you are looking at different guideways.
No shuttle system is going to be a PRT vehicle unless it is intended to have no meaningful transportation function and a benefactor has no interest in making a return.
Best wishes, (although you sometimes confuse me J)
Marsden
WALTER BREWER
eph
($125 million) to build a shorter line from Hart Plaza to Detroit New
Center, so maybe they are the ones to convince that starting a new
business in Detroit on top of providing innovative transit would be a
better use of their money?
Then the federal gov't took over - now the project will be complete by
2016 (instead of 2013 expected by the private group) and cost $500
million (or more) and extend to 8 mile road (9.3 miles instead of
3.4).
Link below has a video which answered a lot of my questions (like
where will the LRT run and where will the stations be.) The answers
are astounding! Nice depiction of Canada in the opening sequence,
bulk of it is pretty boring.
"U.S. Department of Transportation commits to partial funding of $500M
Detroit light rail project, will study environmental impact first"
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/08/us_department_of_transportatio.html
The video shows the 3 centre lanes replaced by LRT and a grassy
boulevard. No more centre turn lane, no more left-turn lanes, good
luck if your business is on Woodward Ave., you will lose your
investment because patrons will no longer be able to access your
business. The earlier plan called for a more sane streetcar (and
probably cheaper, yet slower). What's wrong with just running a few
articulated or double-deck buses?
As for elevated systems, I guess putting pilers in the middle or sides
of the street would be better than what is proposed for LRT, but it
may be nicer to do arches from curbside to curbside or a 'C' shaped
offset support.
M1/boondoggle project history:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/15/smallbusiness/detroit_m1_light_rail/
Some facts about the project (August 2010):
M1 Rail backers accept reality: Government's involvement
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20100808/SUB01/308089945/m1-rail-backers-accept-reality-governments-involvement#
F.
On Oct 15, 2:25 pm, Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> Dennis,
>
> In the past, the Milpitas situation was presented to us, and we did offer to
> get seriously involved, exploring the installing a private system in that
> shuttle situation which could evolve into a larger network. When we express
> interest in a privately funded project, contact was dropped from their side.
> We came away with the assumption there was no interest in the private sector
> their efforts.
>
> The $3 million figure was not that project, but one in Denmark where the
> customer wanted a bid.
>
> Is the $3m shuttle PRT or GRT scale? Dennis, for what ever reason you do
> Cabintaxi system, or an 18 passenger Cabintaxi system; if the system is
> which is not part of this discussion as I understand it, then yes you are
> looking at different guideways.
>
> No shuttle system is going to be a PRT vehicle unless it is intended to have
> no meaningful transportation function and a benefactor has no interest in
> making a return.
>
>
> Marsden
>
> _____
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Manning
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 1:28 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
>
> Marsden:
>
> The most interesting item I saw was the $3m figure for a simple shuttle
> starter. Have you spoken with Rod Means in Milpitas, CA? That's what he is
> promoting for a starter system. Of course with the vision of system
> expansion. Is the $3m shuttle PRT or GRT scale?
>
> Dennis
>
>
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 9:37 AM
>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>
> Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
>
> Dennis,
>
> Still between other things, but took a second to find this past post.
> Clearly, I have stated most of this again recently, but the facts have not
> changed.
>
> However memories understandably, grow shorter, and the realities of the
> pressures on the existing efforts, remind us that everything old can be new,
> and in this case, the Cabintaxi approaches, developed by well meaning real
> world transit knowledgeable engineers, had and have solid basis in real
> world transit integration.
>
> I believe this post is well worth reading again and considering; where LHR
> is; where Masdar is; what the possibilities are going to look like for small
> vehicle systems in a year of two; and where Cabintaxi was, and what it can
> be with effectively no engineering development risk.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marsden
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> passenger, can work with vehicles of different lengths, and types (freight
> and passengers) sharing the guideway at the same time. Separating the
> levels into different types of systems can work for some types of
> applications, but is questionable for passenger service in a network because
> the return process would be different than the out-bound process.
>
> The real world choices between small vehicle PRT and GRT are not so clear.
> I do not know how many of you have looked at the study that I attached
> earlier, but here are some basics again: (Real world passenger demand
> modeling form a real community using actually operating characteristics of a
> system that can actually be built. Still it is not meant to say that any
> simulation is perfect, but simulation is the best we can do short of
> operational data.)
>
> Here is a PRT system layout:
>
>
> [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marsden Burger
> Sent: Friday, October
>
>
> read more »
>
> image003.jpg
> 422KViewDownload
>
> image002.jpg
> 569KViewDownload
>
> image001.jpg
> 199KViewDownload
Jack Slade
I don't know. I personally think any rules and regs made for this is just a pile of crap, solving nothing, and sometimes causing unnecessary delays. Does anybody think the first space capsule was "Certified"? If so, by whom?
Examples: When we put the first piece of computerized equipment in Toronto ATC (abput 1962) there was Nobody in Canada other than IMB who could even service it.
Also: A Toronto small operator bought a Learjet for use in his business. The rules said he had to be checked out by licenced Govt Ckeck Pilots before he could use it. The problem was that nobody in Govt employ had ever flown a Learjet, so he had to train them before they could sign his checkout. STUPID?
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eph
as scrutinized as public transit systems, maybe even more.
I know air-traffic control systems have fall-backs and probably
verification methods (like talking to the pilots). Space capsules
crash/burn/explode etc... Not a good comparison for public transit
systems.
F.
On Oct 15, 4:27 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I don't know. I personally think any rules and regs made for this is just a pile of crap, solving nothing, and sometimes causing unnecessary delays. Does anybody think the first space capsule was "Certified"? If so, by whom?
>
> Examples: When we put the first piece of computerized equipment in Toronto ATC (abput 1962) there was Nobody in Canada other than IMB who could even service it.
> Also: A Toronto small operator bought a Learjet for use in his business. The rules said he had to be checked out by licenced Govt Ckeck Pilots before he could use it. The problem was that nobody in Govt employ had ever flown a Learjet, so he had to train them before they could sign his checkout. STUPID?
>
> Jack Slade
>
>
> > >>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> 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.
Michael Weidler
| Jerry R, Not all unions in Detroit are UAW. Furthermore, even those which come under the UAW umbrella do not make Auto Company wages if they don't work for the Big 3 - just ask anyone who works for one of the industry parts suppliers. BTW, the main difference between The Big 3 and Toyota is/was the "jobs bank". This was a brain dead idea which effectively meant nobody ever got laid off. And even that isn't what caused the collapse. What caused the collapse was the financial crisis and the inability to procure credit. JIT cashflow management has the same inherent problem as JIT manufacturing - any hiccup in the system and you're royally screwed. |
--- On Fri, 10/15/10, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: |
Michael Weidler
| Nope. I was one of those rustbelt workers who worked for a company which raped it's workers and was itself raped by Victor Posner. The Shenango Valley still hasn't recovered from the assault. Unions are not a cure all. The main purpose of unions is to give labor a fair piece of the profits and safe working conditions. As I said earlier, why should I be making $10/hr when the CEO is making a Million$ plus? In my opinion, the only people who should be making outrageous incomes are the sales staff - and that should be commission based. |
--- On Fri, 10/15/10, Kirston Henderson <Kirston....@megarail.com> wrote: |
|
Marsden Burger
F.
Previously I spoke to the issue of the plan that the People Mover would be the circulator for a network of light rail lines fanning out from downtown Detroit. I mentioned that while that was the stated plan, the "professionals" in the business knew it was never going to happen. At the same time, I should say that most of the politicians knew deep down that the chances that it was going to happen were very low, but they probably justified the public stories they were telling as, not lies, but "efforts to bring about the improbable.” Like the steroid scandal in baseball, how can all of these people be lying – because it is in their interest, and they are pressured not to break ranks.
Was it a real plan? It is an interesting question.
Please remember what you are seeing here in these articles about the Detroit project, it is exactly the same tenor that led people to believe the "plan" for radial lines was real. The lay individuals parrot the lines they hear as if they are true because it is written, when what you are hearing are really politicians and developers telling of their "efforts to bring about the improbable". Unfortunately, Detroit has been hearing these stories about mass transit (which always means rail) for the last fifty years, and they have all been "efforts to bring about the improbable".
Can I describe to you the individual elements that render this program about a 15% probability of happening, and an 85% probability that it will not - absolutely, point by point, line by line. I have been in these activities for forty years.
While I give the Detroit Project a 15% chance, it is actually more difficult to predict than some, because of the dying nature of a city that represented American manufacturing, combined with an African American administration, which like all of us, does not want it to look like America is in a free fall decline. (One figure stated by Governor Candidate Snyder, is that in the last ten years, 50% of all jobs lost in America have been lost in Michigan.) If you couple this with the ability the government has demonstrated over the last two years, to ignore laws and regulations, in what is justifiably a time of national crisis; all of the normal reasons that this project may not go anywhere, can quickly go out the window.
However, I doubt these reasons will go out the window. Our government is short on money, and when the time comes to put money into this project (probably in three to four year – forget their schedule), the debt mountain will look so high, every project will go through a microscope far more powerful than before.
The two videos are interesting book ends, like the idea of the red states and the blue states. In this case, both are ridiculously in favor of their position. The powerful men that you identify are presently “true believers” and taken the position that light rail is the answer to transit problems.
Maybe some chance will come for them to get behind systems that will do more good for our city, but not while they are the leaders of the “efforts to bring about the improbable.”
Best wishes,
Marsden
--
Marsden Burger
Michael,
I hope that the last Google image will work for you.
Sounds like you might have been an employee of Sharon Steel. Myself, I grew up in Warren, listening to the “Tales of the Mahoning and Shenango Valleys” on my crystal set.
Best wishes,
Marsden
Jack Slade
OOPS: don't answer rhat question, because it is the way Canada has been run for 50 years....guesswork, instead of sensible discussion..
Jack Slade
--- On Fri, 10/15/10, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Michael Weidler
| I got it to open, but there didn't appear to be any lines on it. Don't feel bad. I've been having a time getting the program to work for me too and I'm usually quite good at making programs jump through hoops. Yes, I used to work at Sharon Steel. One of the dumber strategic errors of my life. I should have finished my assoc in metallurgy, which would have opened some interesting doors. Instead I did what was expected of me and went to work at the mill. --- On Fri, 10/15/10, Marsden Burger <Cabint...@msn.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
eph
LRT along Woodward is a waste of money and I hope it doesn't get
built. I still think the idea of investing in a start-up (even if
it's "just" the $125 million of private money for the shorter line) to
get a shiny new innovative transit system going would be worth the
effort.
Let's try it another way (again)...
Would it take more than $125 million to build a 3.4 mile Guideway
system along Woodward and is it possible to cover operating cost
assuming patronage exists?
Maybe an ULTra or 2getthere type of system could run bi-directional on
the People Mover structures with some modification then extend down
Woodward making a direct to destination system? This is the premium
service idea instead of a replacement for public transit. Of course,
ULTra and 2getthere aren't U.S. companies that are willing to build a
manufacturing plant in Detroit, or are they.
F.
On Oct 16, 1:48 am, Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> Previously I spoke to the issue of the plan that the People Mover would be
> the circulator for a network of light rail lines fanning out from downtown
> Detroit. I mentioned that while that was the stated plan, the
> "professionals" in the business knew it was never going to happen. At the
> same time, I should say that most of the politicians knew deep down that the
> chances that it was going to happen were very low, but they probably
> justified the public stories they were telling as, not lies, but "efforts to
> bring about the improbable." Like the steroid scandal in baseball, how can
> rtatio.html
> The video shows the 3 centre lanes replaced by LRT and a grassy
>
> boulevard. No more centre turn lane, no more left-turn lanes, good
>
> luck if your business is on Woodward Ave., you will lose your
>
> investment because patrons will no longer be able to access your
>
> business. The earlier plan called for a more sane streetcar (and
>
> probably cheaper, yet slower). What's wrong with just running a few
>
> articulated or double-deck buses?
>
> As for elevated systems, I guess putting pilers in the middle or sides
>
> of the street would be better than what is proposed for LRT, but it
>
> may be nicer to do arches from curbside to curbside or a 'C' shaped
>
> offset support.
>
> M1/boondoggle project history:
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/15/smallbusiness/detroit_m1_light_rail/
>
> Some facts about the project (August 2010):
>
> M1 Rail backers accept reality: Government's involvement
>
> s-accept-reality-governments-involvement#
>
> read more »
Kirston Henderson
>
> Yeah, I'm pretty gullible sometimes.
>
> LRT along Woodward is a waste of money and I hope it doesn't get
> built. I still think the idea of investing in a start-up (even if
> it's "just" the $125 million of private money for the shorter line) to
> get a shiny new innovative transit system going would be worth the
> effort.
>
> Let's try it another way (again)...
> Would it take more than $125 million to build a 3.4 mile Guideway
> system along Woodward and is it possible to cover operating cost
> assuming patronage exists?
>
> Maybe an ULTra or 2getthere type of system could run bi-directional on
> the People Mover structures with some modification then extend down
> Woodward making a direct to destination system? This is the premium
> service idea instead of a replacement for public transit. Of course,
> ULTra and 2getthere aren't U.S. companies that are willing to build a
> manufacturing plant in Detroit, or are they.
Building a manufacturing plant in Detroit would be a difficult thing for
any company, including U.S. companies. We would not consider it at all.
WALTER BREWER
line haul option, and had a few branches to prominent destinations off the
main line?
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "eph" <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
F.
> read more �
eph
it's easier to plunk pilers where tracks would have been and show all
the space still available compared to LRT and show it's faster, more
pleasant and let's say safer because you have your own pod, perhaps
shared with people you know. Show the capital cost is comparable,
that O&M is better covered by fare revenue.
Once that has been demonstrated, other bells and whistles can be
explored - stations at different stadium levels for example or
building to building - like a private elevator - get in in one
building, get out in another, never go out on the street, never get
exposed to the elements.
Kirston,
I believe it's likely the feds would get involved even on a mostly
private system, so that's probably also a deal-breaker for you. To
me, the money the feds are waving around is stimulus money for an area
that's hurting. Maybe it's just my off-base Canadian read of American
politics? If I'm wrong, I guess China or South-Korea will be getting
the money and the jobs building new LRV while Americans will be laying
tracks and building stations until the money runs out or the next LRT
boondoggle gets more stimulus money. It's the fish vs fishing rod
story the way I see it because you can't export laying tracks and
building stations. You can export podcars and guideway sections
however.
F.
>
> read more »
Jerry Schneider
>Of course, but the original idea was for LRT (which is line-haul) so
>it's easier to plunk pilers where tracks would have been and show all
>the space still available compared to LRT and show it's faster, more
>pleasant and let's say safer because you have your own pod, perhaps
>shared with people you know. Show the capital cost is comparable,
>that O&M is better covered by fare revenue.
>
>Once that has been demonstrated, other bells and whistles can be
>explored - stations at different stadium levels for example or
>building to building - like a private elevator - get in in one
>building, get out in another, never go out on the street, never get
>exposed to the elements.
>
>Kirston,
>I believe it's likely the feds would get involved even on a mostly
>private system, so that's probably also a deal-breaker for you. To
>me, the money the feds are waving around is stimulus money for an area
>that's hurting. Maybe it's just my off-base Canadian read of American
>politics? If I'm wrong, I guess China or South-Korea will be getting
>the money and the jobs building new LRV while Americans will be laying
>tracks and building stations until the money runs out or the next LRT
>boondoggle gets more stimulus money. It's the fish vs fishing rod
>story the way I see it because you can't export laying tracks and
>building stations. You can export podcars and guideway sections
>however.
Maybe the Canadians (i.e. Bombardier) would get the LRT business - they
can do it all, can't they? Unless the fed money has a "buy American" rule.
Kirston Henderson
>
> Kirston,
> I believe it's likely the feds would get involved even on a mostly
> private system, so that's probably also a deal-breaker for you. To
> me, the money the feds are waving around is stimulus money for an area
> that's hurting. Maybe it's just my off-base Canadian read of American
> politics? If I'm wrong, I guess China or South-Korea will be getting
> the money and the jobs building new LRV while Americans will be laying
> tracks and building stations until the money runs out or the next LRT
> boondoggle gets more stimulus money. It's the fish vs fishing rod
> story the way I see it because you can't export laying tracks and
> building stations. You can export podcars and guideway sections
> however.
>
we don't intend to manufacture in Detroit.
eph
union, non North-American made LRV makers? Assuming they are made in
Canada by union workers of course.
Are there American-made LRV and if so, where are they made?
If American-made LRV are to be used for the Woodward line, that
certainly takes some of the Detroit startup argument. It would be
good to find out. I think Canada has rules/laws? against awarding
contracts exclusively to Canadian companies.
Something about "international competitive bidding"
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Reinstate+bidding+metro+contract/3623833/story.html
Free-trade might allow Bombardier to bid on U.S. contracts, maybe? We
need an international lawyer in the group...
F.
Jerry Schneider
>I don't follow LRV sales, does Bombardier manage to compete with non-
>union, non North-American made LRV makers? Assuming they are made in
>Canada by union workers of course.
I don't know.
>Are there American-made LRV and if so, where are they made?
I don't know either. However, the big light rail annual conference
(Railvolution)
is coming up soon in Portland and by looking at the exhibitors, one could
begin to find some answers.http://www.railvolution.com/
Or maybe not - scanning the program and exhibitors, it appears to be
most LRT clients,
consultants, public planners, advocate orgs, government officials -
strong on planning,
engineering design and various implementation issues. I don't see
Bombardier anywhere
on the program (as exhibitor, sponsor, presenter, workshop chair).
Nor do I see more than
a couple of other LRV vendors exhibiting. More than 1000 attendees
are expected.
Lots of field trips to show off the wonders wrought by LRT in
Portland. http://www.railvolution.com/
>If American-made LRV are to be used for the Woodward line, that
>certainly takes some of the Detroit startup argument. It would be
>good to find out. I think Canada has rules/laws? against awarding
>contracts exclusively to Canadian companies.
>Something about "international competitive bidding"
>http://www.montrealgazette.com/Reinstate+bidding+metro+contract/3623833/story.html
>
>Free-trade might allow Bombardier to bid on U.S. contracts, maybe? We
>need an international lawyer in the group...
I'm sure that Tom Rubin could answer your questions. I will ask him.
Marsden Burger
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:30 AM
To: transport-innovators
Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
Yeah, I'm pretty gullible sometimes.
LRT along Woodward is a waste of money and I hope it doesn't get
built. I still think the idea of investing in a start-up (even if
it's "just" the $125 million of private money for the shorter line) to
get a shiny new innovative transit system going would be worth the
effort.
[Marsden Burger]
“Worth the effort” for the city to try, but the climate is not there within the leadership, which has no way of believing what is possible.
Let's try it another way (again)...
Would it take more than $125 million to build a 3.4 mile Guideway
system along Woodward and is it possible to cover operating cost
assuming patronage exists?
[Marsden Burger]
Ok – Drag it out of me! .. J
Cabintaxi technology could undoubtedly be laid out to cover all capital and operating costs out of the combination of $125 million and fare box revenue. It is though, not something that we would do in a first time revival of the system. Building any new, or redeveloped, technology in a high visibility situation is a recipe for corporate and technology disaster. The schedule, and pressures to meet it under the glare of an expectant city, would give rise to risks not worth attempting.
In this situation and time, I believe that the expansion of the People Mover is more realistic for the City. The expansion of the People Mover down Woodward is only a track expansion. No new vehicles are required. No new operations, storage, or maintenance facilities are required. No new personnel are required.
The estimates of personnel, very familiar with the construction of this technology, feel it could easily be done for $150 million, probably the $125 million. The operational cost of the People Mover running the same vehicles would hardly change from the present costs of running around the loop. The present subsidy for the People Mover is $10 million per year. If the ridership increases significantly – I think it would triple to 15,000 per day using the route off Woodward – than the $10 million per year is reduced by the fares from the increased ridership. A lower operating subsidy is a big deal for the nearly bankrupt city. Also, the 13 stations in the downtown loop are an immediate distribution system around the downtown, which would be lacking for light rail or Cabintaxi. While Cabintaxi might be able to have an excess revenue relationship that would help to defray the capital, how much might still be available to help the city cover the People Movers deficit would be very hard to say.
Government Light Rail on the other hand will have higher capital costs than estimated, have ridership that will be lower than the People Mover if it were expanded – lower even than the bus service that is there now, with the existing traffic, because the service will be not as frequent – and have an operational cost that is higher than the present People Mover. With any new construction of transit technology there will be different traffic, as any system constructed will foster new development to some degree, and new traffic would not be the case with the existing busses. (Interestingly, there is already new development taking place along the corridor in anticipation for the system that may never be – “get in now before land value really goes up”. If fixed facility transit is not constructed, then the new activity/traffic will get better service from the existing busses than the Light Rail these developers are expecting. “Light Rail is not about transportation service, it is about development.” a statement from many “transit” advocates.)
Here is one of the biggest catches, there is no source of funds to pay for any new operating costs - “0.” An operating subsidy source is required for the Fed to put in capital funds. If there were a funding source, then we would be looking at twice the present operation subsidy for rail, for an extra system that is no better in service than the busses, which they will still need in some fashion. The “private sector”(as in, land owners and “land interests” trying to convince the foundations to put up most of the money)has always planned to push the operating costs onto the city, which is smiling and fighting hard to prevent this, while at the same time trying to convince the Fed it needs the $500 million for a big project (read job creation) in the hopes that the needed operating funds will come from somewhere, just not from them.
One of the problems all of the studies and plans for rail in the Detroit region is that Detroit is the first sprawl city in the country, and the downtown has lost its density. A problem of many cities to be sure, but as the sprawl that surrounds Detroit has also left “for further out”, getting useful service out of radial light rail lines is hard to do out of sparse areas that have little interest to go downtown to begin with. However, the downtown and the Woodward corridor along the three-mile stretch to the new center have the remains of some of the greatest cultural facilities in the nation. The Detroit Institute of Arts, the Detroit Symphony, the Detroit Library, are all of a level only obtainable by the peak of economic wealth that was here. Further, there are the major medical facilities of the Detroit Medical Center, Ford Hospital, and the Wayne State Medical School, one of the largest, if not the largest medical school in the United States. Presently these facilities are islands much to themselves. Going to any of them, except for the students of Wayne State University itself, is an awkward auto trip, or slower bus trip, making these urban amenities not really part of an urban center – you can not come to the core of Detroit, and easily reach this facilities, they might as well be in Dearborn or Ann Arbor rather than strung out along the corridor.
By doing a People Mover expansion that does not go down Woodward itself, but goes elevated down secondary streets, it can tie in directly with these major facilities (almost all of which are off Woodward a block or two) and bring travel convenience to the corridor’s patrons that is vastly superior to the car for thousands of Detroiters. It allows for movement (trip times) in the corridor that is twice as fast as bus or light rail, with average wait times of 45 seconds, vs 5 - 15 minutes.
Further, taking the People Mover directly into the high activity centers, access that can be more easily accomplished by elevated vs at grade systems, the People Mover can function closer to the service capability of small vehicle systems – achieving high quality service within two years while using technology that is already accepted by the city.
One reasons why Detroit has a poor level of attraction to those that live in the safer outlying communities, is that the most important mode of transportation, is nearly useless in this city – pedestrian. The areas of interest are not necessarily in the core and there is no serious way to move other than the car – but parking is expensive and cumbersome.
The People Mover expansion – different than the City’s temporary job creation plan known as light rail – is not intended to be a suburban path into a city where most suburbanites do not want to go. It is intended to create mobility freedom within the existing urban core, making it easier for those who are there to get around to areas that they want and need to reach, while at the same time allowing those suburbanites that want to avail themselves of an urban environment, the opportunity to come in to the city by the mode of choice, the automobile. Park one time at a low cost meter or outlying street for free, and the visitor can have easy access to the entire “tied together” three miles of urban amenities that are arguably the best between Chicago and the East Coast. The hope and expectation would be that this urban core, then three time its effective size, would become a greater draw and more quickly truly warrant radial lines of some type into the outlying communities or neighboring cities.
That is the reason that an individual that sits on the most advanced urban transit system in the world, is trying to promote the use of another technology - with which I have no involvement other than a great deal of knowledge: to improve the quality of life in Detroit. Cabintaxi must first do a simple out of the limelight project that makes a profit in the private sector, before reapplying itself into the urban world for which it was intended, and remains the only real fully developed advance urban transit technology hope at this time. Did I mention we are looking for partners…. Oh, yea, I think I did.. J
Maybe an ULTra or 2getthere type of system could run bi-directional on
the People Mover structures with some modification then extend down
Woodward making a direct to destination system? This is the premium
service idea instead of a replacement for public transit. Of course,
ULTra and 2getthere aren't U.S. companies that are willing to build a
manufacturing plant in Detroit, or are they.
[Marsden Burger]
With respect to these efforts, neither of these technology approaches offers much hope in an intense northern climate, which Detroit is.
Nor do they have a record of accomplishment in demonstrated projects, which would make them acceptable for a US government funded project. (As Jerry just referred to in his Tom Rubin reference) Neither does the present Cabintaxi effort.
There is no market for systems with the level of development that any new technology activity has, presently within the governmental process. What we have seen are groups like those leading the Masdar effort, that do not truly understand the issues at the outset and try to make changes on the fly, or the Heathrow effort, which is closer to a governmental controlled development program, to allow undeveloped systems to attempt a foothold. Both of these programs are similar to the lack of understanding that gave rise to the Chicago/Rosemont effort, in which Tom Floyd, a dedicated advanced transit technology professional, convinced Gayle Franzen, a governmentally appoint transit neophyte, that new technology offer a chance for improving our cities. Chicago, like San Jose today, do not, and did not, understand what they were and are getting into and created programs with the best of intentions that went nowhere and will go nowhere.
Society deserves much better form this field, and the results of Cabintaxi, and Transrapid, show that the field can provide it. Unfortunately, society, in the form of local, state, and federal government structure, cannot handle it. Which is why the pursuit of opportunity in the private sector – a slower avenue than what could be, but the only avenue?
Best wishes,
Marsden
--
eph
of another group that has the capital to invest in such a trial.
Vectus managed to get Posco to build a test track. ULTra had a test
track before it went to Heathrow. 2getthere has demonstration
projects (they don't need a guideway). Cabintaxi had a test system
built already (though it's no longer operational). Who's going to
back a test loop without a fat contract attached to it? Maybe a test
loop could be part of the deal?
It doesn't sound like America, the people who decided to put a man on
the moon and did. Risk taking and dreaming BIG seem to be "normal".
Maybe the challenge of re-building a transit system isn't big enough?
The reward for success and shame of failure are all wrong? Better to
attempt driver-less cars and risk failure at that?
Though the People Mover would be better than "LRT", it would not have
the sex-appeal of podcars nor would it have potential for a new
industry (Bombardier already sells them).
Is there a way to repackage Cabintaxi into something like a moon
shot? To explain to the public how high the bar "really" is and the
tremendous development effort required to get there. Build up the
meaning of success while lessening the impact of delays and cost
overruns - it's not about getting transit (which isn't really needed)
it's about building a new way to attack the transit problem (or
something similar). Maybe a good portion of the budget needs to go to
advertising? Maybe the public can be involved in refining the design
- and follow the progress?
Seems there is $8 million a year to subsidize operating costs - from
"tax-increment financing"!
"In December 2008, Michigan lawmakers agreed to provide $8 million a
year to subsidize operating costs. They also passed legislation to
allow a new public-private entity to operate it, and allow tax-
increment financing to raise funds for operations [Transportation
Riders United website, 23 May 2009].
simulation The M1 Rail line originally was projected to begin running
by 2012 and the city’s portion by 2013. (With construction startup
delayed, the opening may be pushed later, perhaps to 2013.) The DDOT
line is projected to carry 22,200 daily passengers [Detroit News, 22
May 2009]. The parties are working on a single name and website for
the combined project.
[LRT simulation: DTOG]
In April, the Brookings Institute published a report that found that a
high percentage of workers in the Detroit area commute suburb-to-
suburb (77% of jobs are more than 10 miles from the urban core, as
compared with an 45% average). Based on those findings, the Detroit
News editorialized that the city should focus on improving the bus
system and adding highspeed bus lines instead of light rail [Detroit
News editorial, 7 April 2009]."
http://vizcom.tumblr.com/post/201127474/detroit-light-rail
ULTra/2getthere could run on snow/special tires with a grid track so
snow/ice can fall through (yet to be tested).
F.
On Oct 17, 3:16 pm, Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>
> [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of eph
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:30 AM
> To: transport-innovators
> Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
>
> Yeah, I'm pretty gullible sometimes.
>
> LRT along Woodward is a waste of money and I hope it doesn't get
>
> built. I still think the idea of investing in a start-up (even if
>
> it's "just" the $125 million of private money for the shorter line) to
>
> get a shiny new innovative transit system going would be worth the
>
> effort.
>
> [Marsden Burger]
>
> "Worth the effort" for the city to try, but the climate is not there within
> the leadership, which has no way of believing what is possible.
>
> Let's try it another way (again)...
>
> Would it take more than $125 million to build a 3.4 mile Guideway
>
> system along Woodward and is it possible to cover operating cost
>
> assuming patronage exists?
>
> [Marsden Burger]
>
> Cabintaxi technology could undoubtedly be laid out to cover all capital and
> operating costs out of the combination of $125 million and fare box revenue.
> It is though, not something that we would do in a first time revival of the
> system. Building any new, or redeveloped, technology in a high visibility
> situation is a recipe for corporate and technology disaster. The schedule,
> and pressures to meet it under the glare of an expectant city, would give
> rise to risks not worth attempting.
>
> In this situation and time, I believe that the expansion of the People Mover
> is more realistic for the City. The expansion of the People Mover down
> Woodward is only a track expansion. No new vehicles are required. No new
> operations, storage, or maintenance facilities are required. No new
> personnel are required.
>
> The estimates of personnel, very familiar with the construction of this
> technology, feel it could easily be done for $150 million, probably the $125
> million. The operational cost of the People Mover running the same vehicles
> would hardly change from the present costs of running around the loop. The
> present subsidy for the People Mover is $10 million per year. If the
> day using the route off Woodward - than the $10 million per year is reduced
> big deal for the nearly bankrupt city. Also, the 13 stations in the
> downtown loop are an immediate distribution system around the downtown,
> which would be lacking for light rail or Cabintaxi. While Cabintaxi might
> be able to have an excess revenue relationship that would help to defray the
> capital, how much might still be available to help the city cover the People
> Movers deficit would be very hard to say.
>
> Government Light Rail on the other hand will have higher capital costs than
> estimated, have ridership that will be lower than the People Mover if it
> existing traffic, because the service will be not as frequent - and have an
> construction of transit technology there will be different traffic, as any
> system constructed will foster new development to some degree, and new
> traffic would not be the case with the existing busses. (Interestingly,
> there is already new development taking place along the corridor in
> Arbor rather than strung out along the corridor.
>
> By doing a People Mover expansion that does not go down Woodward itself, but
> goes elevated down secondary streets, it can tie in directly with these
> major facilities (almost all of which are off Woodward a block or two) and
> bring travel convenience to the corridor's patrons that is vastly superior
> to the car for thousands of Detroiters. It allows for movement (trip times)
> in the corridor that is twice as fast as bus or light rail, with average
> wait times of 45 seconds, vs 5 - 15 minutes.
>
> Further, taking the People Mover directly into the high activity centers,
> access that can be more easily accomplished by elevated vs at grade systems,
> the People Mover can function closer to the service capability of small
>
> One reasons why Detroit has a poor level of attraction to those that live in
> the safer outlying communities, is that the most important mode of
>
> The People Mover expansion - different than the City's temporary job
> creation plan known as light rail - is not intended to be a suburban path
> create mobility freedom within the existing urban core, making it easier for
> those who are there to get around to areas that they want and need to reach,
> while at the same time allowing those suburbanites that want to avail
> themselves of an urban environment, the opportunity to come in to the city
> by the mode of choice, the automobile. Park one time at a low cost meter or
> outlying street for free, and the visitor can have easy access to the entire
> "tied together" three miles of urban amenities that are arguably the best
> between Chicago and the East Coast. The hope and expectation would be that
> this urban core, then three time its effective size, would become a greater
> draw and more quickly truly warrant radial lines of some type into the
> outlying communities or neighboring cities.
>
> That is the reason that an individual that sits on the most advanced urban
> transit system in the world, is trying to promote the use of another
> technology - with which I have no involvement other than a great deal of
> knowledge: to improve the quality of life in Detroit. Cabintaxi must first
> do a simple out of the limelight project that makes a profit in the private
> sector, before reapplying itself into the urban world for which it was
> intended, and remains the only real fully developed advance urban transit
> Oh, yea, I think I did.. :-)
Marsden Burger
No one said we need a test track to build simple system. We just do not
plan to do anything at something like one of the most famous Airports in the
world. Of course, no famous airport would allow any new system to do it -
unless maybe they owned or had a significant ownership in the system
supplier.
The State may say it approves that a tax increment "be approved" for a given
city, but it would be useful to have the city agree to it.
Tax increment financing only works when land values go up. If land value
stays constant, there is no revenue. This is not an acceptable funding
source. Presently in Detroit, and for an unknown time, land values are
going down, meaning all of the activity presently funded with tax increment
financing from the same land has a high need for funding. When do you want
to guess Detroit will turn around? When will it go up to the level that it
can raise the needed funds above those that the prior commitments need, even
if the City goes along with it?
Transit advocate groups unfortunately drink the Kool-Aid and become part of
the "efforts to achieve the improbable." If you say it will not happen, it
probably will not. If you think trying to achieve the improbable means that
it is going to happen - it still probably will not. Just you are not
fooling anybody, and failure is then a better building block to find a way
to make it happen because the many minds that you think you are fooling, are
actually resources that could be helping to find ways to make something
work.
Ever wonder why the Brookings Institute never seems to address the area of
advanced transit technology. I spoke with one of their key transportation
people once; he did not even know that Transrapid existed. The News article
makes a lot of sense, as well as their findings.
Pod cars have no appeal to the elderly - personally, I do not like the name.
Do you notice in the dates that you give below, the time is always -
slipping.
In Canada, when the roads get really bad from snow and ice, don't you drive
a little slower than in the summer - even with snow tires. Maintaining
short headways/separation is critical to the utilization of small vehicle
systems in mass transit. I am unaware of either of these two efforts
demonstrating significant fleet endurance testing at short headways, three
seconds or less, in good weather conditions. Add rain, turning to ice,
turning to heavy snow; and then do the testing that is critical to fleet
operation - because thousands of commuters will still need to get home. I
would suggest this prior to a significant installation in a northern city.
The basic approach of these efforts speaks to a lack of concern for severe
winter weather issues. With Masdar, it is understandable, and I have a
great deal of respect from what I see of 2getthere. Concerning Ultra, I
spoke with Martin long ago directly on this issue; I understand the
situation he put forward and wish him well.
François just wait and watch. In the meantime, please challenge with open
eyes.
Jack Slade
Your other point about the effect of bad weather is a very important one, and most people do not consider this, especially those who keep insisting that systems must be at-grade. Even though I have tried to keep all-weather operation in mind, I know of some past storms that would shut everything down.
For those who do not live in a snow environment, it's like this, for my Daughter's 20-mile drive home from North Yonge St, Toronto: Normal time is 40 Min to 1 Hr by car or express bus
1 inch of snow ....about 30 min longer
Moderate or heavy rain....same
3 to 4 inches of snow.... + 1 Hr or more longer
Freezing rain............about the same
Heavy snowfall 6 Inch or more....2 Hrs or anybody's guess
Subways and Go Trains usually not too bad, until a car gets stalled on a track and gets hit, which will close down the train.
Situations like this I can plan for in system design, but there is no actual way to test the effectiveness of a design without a test system, in a place where you can encounter everything possible, and perhaps add a few snow-making machines to make it even worse. Worst case scenario: At least you find what your system will do, and set parameters for when service should be curtailed or discontinued.
And you're not finished yet: About 10 years ago a Low Pressure Area stalled out over Eastern Canada. It sat there for a whole week, until everything was covered with about 4 inches of ice. Transmission wires usually took the load, but the weak link turned out to be the towers, which collapsed under the load.
No power for anything. This tells me that it will be best to put a little extra strength in elevated guideways, or one day this will happen again, and all the guideways will come down too.
It's hard to design for all possibilities, but you have to try.
Jack Slade
--- On Mon, 10/18/10, Marsden Burger <Cabint...@msn.com> wrote:
eph
On Oct 18, 12:40 am, Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> No one said we need a test track to build simple system. We just do not
> plan to do anything at something like one of the most famous Airports in the
> world. Of course, no famous airport would allow any new system to do it -
> unless maybe they owned or had a significant ownership in the system
> supplier.
>
> The State may say it approves that a tax increment "be approved" for a given
> city, but it would be useful to have the city agree to it.
>
> Tax increment financing only works when land values go up. If land value
> stays constant, there is no revenue. This is not an acceptable funding
> source. Presently in Detroit, and for an unknown time, land values are
> going down, meaning all of the activity presently funded with tax increment
> financing from the same land has a high need for funding. When do you want
> to guess Detroit will turn around? When will it go up to the level that it
> can raise the needed funds above those that the prior commitments need, even
> if the City goes along with it?
>
> Transit advocate groups unfortunately drink the Kool-Aid and become part of
> the "efforts to achieve the improbable." If you say it will not happen, it
> probably will not. If you think trying to achieve the improbable means that
> it is going to happen - it still probably will not. Just you are not
> fooling anybody, and failure is then a better building block to find a way
> to make it happen because the many minds that you think you are fooling, are
> actually resources that could be helping to find ways to make something
> work.
get outrageously expensive to build and operate systems put into place
on the fantasy that property values will increase because tracks will
divide one side of the street from the other, you're right, they're
drinking the Kool-Aid.
>
> Ever wonder why the Brookings Institute never seems to address the area of
> advanced transit technology. I spoke with one of their key transportation
> people once; he did not even know that Transrapid existed. The News article
> makes a lot of sense, as well as their findings.
The facts they used however show the folie of "LRT" in Detroit.
>
> Pod cars have no appeal to the elderly - personally, I do not like the name.
>
> Do you notice in the dates that you give below, the time is always -
> slipping.
to sound familiar and "right". Eventually, Boondoggle Rail will be
built - just like in every other large city.
>
> In Canada, when the roads get really bad from snow and ice, don't you drive
> a little slower than in the summer - even with snow tires. Maintaining
> short headways/separation is critical to the utilization of small vehicle
> systems in mass transit. I am unaware of either of these two efforts
> demonstrating significant fleet endurance testing at short headways, three
> seconds or less, in good weather conditions. Add rain, turning to ice,
> turning to heavy snow; and then do the testing that is critical to fleet
> operation - because thousands of commuters will still need to get home. I
> would suggest this prior to a significant installation in a northern city.
> The basic approach of these efforts speaks to a lack of concern for severe
> winter weather issues. With Masdar, it is understandable, and I have a
> great deal of respect from what I see of 2getthere. Concerning Ultra, I
> spoke with Martin long ago directly on this issue; I understand the
> situation he put forward and wish him well.
with snow and ice. 2getthere's magnetic markers should do better.
Max. deceleration rates on podcars are very modest with emergency
braking at 1/2g (~5 m/s^2) and typical deceleration at 1/3g. Based on
quite a few years of winter experience, I would say that maintaining
this deceleration rate on a grid guideway should be possible most of
the time. Sand and salt may be needed and robotic (or even human
operated) snow clearing equipment might be needed. Not to say this
approach will be 100% effective, but when cars and other means of
transportation don't work, you'll be the only one at the office on a
very bad weather day - so what's the point? As long as the system
exceeds others, that is, if it's the best out there at dealing with
weather - it's great.
>
> François just wait and watch. In the meantime, please challenge with open
> eyes.
ready to be deployed. Maybe Brad is right, robocars will be available
before we see the first PRT system with more than 3 stations
operational.
Marsden Burger
I remember well an ice storm that came through the Detroit area in about the time you refer. And that it was worse as it went northeast.
Working in snow and ice is critical for many of the worlds cities. The elements are very tricky, and those that think they have the solution for it without a true northern test track will run a major risk - if they expect to work in northern climates.
Your point about making the guideway with extra strength fit with the general safety outlook of most of the transit industry, and the standards that Cabintaxi met within the German transit world. Another reasons why super inexpensive guideways have never been realized in the real world.
Best wishes,
Marsden
> Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 23:42:56 -0700
> From: skytr...@rogers.com
Jerry Roane
Marsden Burger
I am a strong believer that research into all different areas is good and we can learn a lot that can improve many areas. That is how I view the Robocar activity, and I expect that many positive things will come out of such research.
At this point I see snow as a nearly insurmountable issue for this research premise, following by poor maintenance, theft, and vandalism. How does a robocar deal with four quick forty-five slugs through its control system and then dragged off to the local chop shop which will already have separated tracking devises - the underworld adapts far faster than government. This happens on a continual basis with daily occupied car-jackings in our city. Leave a robocar loose to find it own parking place, and it will never find its way home - accept in pieces. Do not forget the common vandals. Houses are fire boomed here daily just to watch the fire department show up.
I applaud research, but it is sad when in the process we are supposed to believe that it is going to help those who can not afford to get to work by anything but four hours on public transit here in Detroit - the core of what public transit transit system are still about. The action by the "visionary" leadership of Masdar, making it sound like they are putting off the building of PRT because they realize that another modern miracle is just around the corner that city leaders around the world should be considering, speaks to my point about dilettantes retarding the advancement of the advanced transit field.
Here is a piece that I wrote before the announcement of the Masdar changes. I called it thoughts on LHR and Masdar.
LHR & Masdar show the gulf between societal desire and what the transportation “bureaucracy/industry” has provided.
Two factions encumber major advancement in urban transit – those that believe “they” can always do better, hence accomplishing nothing, and those that believe that nothing new is worth doing. The bickering between these factions, confuse democratic government, emasculating its development ability.
Maligned by both of these factions, Morgantown’s automated small vehicle system has provided high quality transit service to people for decades – over 15,000 per day with peaks to 30,000.
As LHR & Masdar fall short of achieving Morgantown’s standard, the first faction already knows “they” can do better, while the second faction waits in the wings to block future “wasteful” funding.
The challenge to those who would improve our cities: don’t withdraw, as after Chicago/Rosemont and DPM programs. Serious transit technology has shown it can take a decade and cost hundreds of millions to develop, but transportation is technology driven and only new technology can improve it.
Real world transit expertise is needed at the inception of new systems. Thorough reviews of what has already been accomplished, hopefully, will prevent other worthy efforts falling short of replicable systems already in place.
Marsden
> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 06:38:35 -0700
> Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
Jack Slade
It is my understanding that the Morgantown system was built without provision for snow clearing and the steam pipes had to be added later, and also that 2/3 of the energy used is for snow clearing. That may me OK if you have the energy available, but I think we have to try to do better than this in the future. That is why I need a test track. With my system I have electric motors running in the track, not in the vehicles, and the waste heat can certainly be utilised....I just have to be sure where to apply it for best results. Small guideways, and keeping flat surfaces to a minimum will certainly ease the problem.
Build it and then pray for global warming? I don't think so, but I remember joking with someone that they could afford waterfront property....just buy far back from the ocean, and wait...
Jack Slade |
|
|
Marsden Burger
Sorry for not responding quicker,
Best wishes,
Marsden
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:39 AM
To: transport-innovators
Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
On Oct 18, 12:40 am, Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> No one said we need a test track to build simple system. We just do not
> plan to do anything at something like one of the most famous Airports in the
> world. Of course, no famous airport would allow any new system to do it -
> unless maybe they owned or had a significant ownership in the system
> supplier.
So at a University campus?
[Marsden Burger]
We have work with the University of Michigan, Indiana University/Purdue University Indianapolis, University of Kentucky, Ohio State, and Georgia Tech. Our experience tells us that they are every bit as difficult to work with as any major governmental unit.
>
> The State may say it approves that a tax increment "be approved" for a given
> city, but it would be useful to have the city agree to it.
>
> Tax increment financing only works when land values go up. If land value
> stays constant, there is no revenue. This is not an acceptable funding
> source. Presently in Detroit, and for an unknown time, land values are
> going down, meaning all of the activity presently funded with tax increment
> financing from the same land has a high need for funding. When do you want
> to guess Detroit will turn around? When will it go up to the level that it
> can raise the needed funds above those that the prior commitments need, even
> if the City goes along with it?
Just the messenger, personally, I don't buy it.
[Marsden Burger]
I was involved with the legislation development. Did not buy it either.
>
> Transit advocate groups unfortunately drink the Kool-Aid and become part of
> the "efforts to achieve the improbable." If you say it will not happen, it
> probably will not. If you think trying to achieve the improbable means that
> it is going to happen - it still probably will not. Just you are not
> fooling anybody, and failure is then a better building block to find a way
> to make it happen because the many minds that you think you are fooling, are
> actually resources that could be helping to find ways to make something
> work.
"The impossible" for them is to build Boondoggle Rail. If they can
get outrageously expensive to build and operate systems put into place
on the fantasy that property values will increase because tracks will
divide one side of the street from the other, you're right, they're
drinking the Kool-Aid.
[Marsden Burger]
They are afraid of the “time reality”. The last chance was 1980. “If we do not get “something” done now, when is our next chance?? – 2040??” “How can we suggest that turning down $500 million in government job stimulation is what our city, still with 24% unemployment, really should be doing – it is ‘some’ transit after all.. L”
>
> Ever wonder why the Brookings Institute never seems to address the area of
> advanced transit technology. I spoke with one of their key transportation
> people once; he did not even know that Transrapid existed. The News article
> makes a lot of sense, as well as their findings.
It's not a news article, it's a "lite rale nouw" propaganda piece.
The facts they used however show the folie of "LRT" in Detroit.
[Marsden Burger]
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Detroit News Editorial.
>
> Pod cars have no appeal to the elderly - personally, I do not like the name.
Why?
[Marsden Burger]
It is a made up name, where simply calling it what it is, small vehicle transit, seems to me the right way to go: form follows function, names should have meaning. Maybe it is just me, but I think the whole effort of “Pod” cars typifies thinking that problems are correctable with “image and hype based answers”, and not true transit and service based answers.
>
> Do you notice in the dates that you give below, the time is always -
> slipping.
Yes, I noticed that. If you repeat something often enough, it begins
to sound familiar and "right". Eventually, Boondoggle Rail will be
built - just like in every other large city.
[Marsden Burger]
Boy and I thought me telling the truth was a downer. L JJ
[Marsden Burger]
F. Aaarrgggg….
As long as the system exceeds others is a long assumption, and just exceeding the street traffic is completely unacceptable in mass transit. If for some reason the system does not exceed others by a wide margin, and snow causes major tie-ups, the riders are tied-up, alone, way up there in the air. They are not going to walk out on a snow-covered guideway and get easily to the ground in ten-degree weather at 6:30pm, in the dark, on a snowy late rush hour evening in a 25 mph wind - on anybody’s concept of a walkway. Let’s say you only strand 600 people that evening: how many induced heart attacks in the elderly do you think will be required before there are valid cries to tear the system out?
Transit systems are not toys, and operations are not games, and the responsibility that transit operators face every day would turn most of us who are not already grey, grey far quicker than expected.
No system that does not undergo extensive, real world one-to-one scale testing in snow conditions, is really a developed system – for winter weather applications.
I believe that there are two basic ways (with variations) to get this testing. One is an extensive test track in a winter condition that Cabintaxi has completed, or a limited smaller scale that faces some elements of winter weather, and then evolves slowly, as the testing and development allow, next to the limited operation. The latter approach is a high-risk activity, and the former is a high-cost activity with variations in between. Take your pick.
Morgantown is a good example of the latter, and the risk, which demonstrated itself politically, resulted in the delay of small vehicle systems acceptance in transit, which continues now over 30 years – even though it is a very effective transit system.
--
Marsden Burger
Jerry,
Also to you and still to Michael, I am sorry to have taken so long getting back. I became so tied up building my soap box on some of my last posts, I needed a break.
In general, I think Jack’s response is pretty accurate, although I do not now remember the exact relationships of energy costs.
I think if you talk to any operating property, Morgantown or the Toronto Transit Commission, they will tell you that they handle the snow and ice issues, dependent on the individual occurrence, but they will never say that they have “solved” the snow and ice issues.
I am also assuming that your reference to Morgantown’s “low cost” guideway is a joke – right?? Actually, I am not sure how much of your post is in jest, but no big deal.
In talking with Boeing engineers at the time of the AGRT program, one of the reasons they did not want to build another Morgantown was the difficulty with the ice and snow issues.
It is not that ice and snow issues “cannot be handled”, it is the need to truly design and test for the repercussions. When you heat your structure, where does the melted water go, and when it re-freezes, which it surly will somewhere, what is the impact of this new location. If your system is using wheels, and melted snow or ice gets onto the wheels and sprays, where does this spray land, and what is the impact of the frozen spray on your system – for example. However, this is but one of an unknown number of examples. The difficult aspect is that you usually do not know where the water is going to go completely. Wind angle can vary, and the result is often, “How did it get there?”
Using sand or other materials to increase traction is age old and successful for some systems, but at what costs. Sand or other particulates picked up and sprayed into the mechanics of the vehicle or switch is not a pleasant maintenance consideration.
If you are a transit property in a northern climate, do you want to buy into these problems if there is another option? The new system supplier says, I think it is going to work, but we have never really tested it in snow conditions - Light Rail forever!
The ability of any given system to penetrate into the northern cities of the world is a balance between maintenance and system capabilities. I do not believe there is any Otis air cushion systems operating exposed in the northern climates, or any Westinghouse C-100 systems operating exposed in significant snow areas – maybe Beijing. Could they operate, sure, I have nothing but respect for the ability of the operational and maintenance teams of transit properties, but at what cost? During the Downtown People Mover Program, Westinghouse did not bid the Detroit project, although they competed hard for Los Angeles and Miami.
Significant time and design efforts went into making the Cabintaxi “guideway vehicle interface” function with out heating in northern climate conditions. Without linear motor drives, I doubt this would be possible and have a truly reliable system sub 3 second system. Even with the smallest slot opening or labyrinth seals, wind blown snow lands, and lays everywhere to some degree. Remember, the entire concept of small vehicle systems serving in true transit operation depends on short headway operation, moving thousands of vehicles. The development of the ability to stop safely within the limitations of a 3-second brick wall stop and then further under ice conditions, went on easily over half a decade, estimated at over $50 million in today’s dollars. Can it be developed for less? – “for sure;” each approach will be different to some degree, but it still has to be done, if you expect to operate as a true transit system in a northern city.
When Raytheon was hard at work developing the Chicago system, I received a call from a past US colleague who was working with that program. After catching up, he asked me, “Say, how did you guys ever solve the problem of stopping with the brick wall limitations on ice?” I explained that a fair sum of money and maybe a joint program, could lead to such information. He never got back to me, and to my knowledge, the Raytheon effort never demonstrated the ability to do fleet operations with a three-second brick wall stop, with or without ice.
Last year in Detroit, far from the coldest city, we went for over four weeks and never got over 32 degrees. I think one of the last few years saw us go over a week and never get over 15 degrees with every evening at 0 or below. Transit system are still expected to run in the evenings, and during cold times, people still need to get to work, well, for those in Detroit that still have jobs. L
Best wishes,
Marsden
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Roane
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010
11:11 AM
To:
transport-...@googlegroups.com
eph
just the system going VERY slowly if traction is reduced, headways
must be increased to safe distances, same as happens (should) with
other rubber tyred vehicles. Hills might have to be heated or somehow
made safe though.
WRT where can Cabintaxi be built, does that only leave large corporate
campuses or other privately owned lands?
WRT "Pod cars have no appeal to the elderly - personally, I do not
like the name" I meant, why do pod cars have no appeal for the
elderly (or is it just the name, not the service?) Personally, I
think it's better than PRT as a name.
F.
> > Ever wonder why the Brookings Institute never seems to address the area of
>
> > advanced transit technology. I spoke with one of their key transportation
>
> > people once; he did not even know that Transrapid existed. The News
> article
>
> > makes a lot of sense, as well as their findings.
>
> It's not a news article, it's a "lite rale nouw" propaganda piece.
>
> The facts they used however show the folie of "LRT" in Detroit.
>
> [Marsden Burger]
>
> Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Detroit News Editorial.
>
> > Pod cars have no appeal to the elderly - personally, I do not like the
> name.
>
> Why?
>
> [Marsden Burger]
>
> It is a made up name, where simply calling it what it is, small vehicle
> transit, seems to me the right way to go: form follows function, names
> should have meaning. Maybe it is just me, but I think the whole effort of
> “Pod” cars typifies thinking that problems are correctable with “image and
> hype based answers”, and not true transit and service based answers.
>
> > Do you notice in the dates that you give below, the time is always -
>
> > slipping.
>
> Yes, I noticed that. If you repeat something often enough, it begins
>
> to sound familiar and "right". Eventually, Boondoggle Rail will be
>
> built - just like in every other large city.
>
> [Marsden Burger]
>
Dennis Manning
would snow and ice interference be less but the heating required in an
enclosed space should be more efficient. If snow and ice are too big a
hurdle at present I don't see why it should slow PRT development in snow/ice
free locations.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "eph" <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 12:26 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>> They are afraid of the �time reality�. The last chance was 1980. �If we
>> do
>> not get �something� done now, when is our next chance?? � 2040??� �How
>> can
>> we suggest that turning down $500 million in government job stimulation
>> is
>> what our city, still with 24% unemployment, really should be doing � it
>> is
>> �some� transit after all.. :-(�
>>
>> > Ever wonder why the Brookings Institute never seems to address the area
>> > of
>>
>> > advanced transit technology. I spoke with one of their key
>> > transportation
>>
>> > people once; he did not even know that Transrapid existed. The News
>> article
>>
>> > makes a lot of sense, as well as their findings.
>>
>> It's not a news article, it's a "lite rale nouw" propaganda piece.
>>
>> The facts they used however show the folie of "LRT" in Detroit.
>>
>> [Marsden Burger]
>>
>> Sorry, I thought you were talking about the Detroit News Editorial.
>>
>> > Pod cars have no appeal to the elderly - personally, I do not like the
>> name.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> [Marsden Burger]
>>
>> It is a made up name, where simply calling it what it is, small vehicle
>> transit, seems to me the right way to go: form follows function, names
>> should have meaning. Maybe it is just me, but I think the whole effort
>> of
>> �Pod� cars typifies thinking that problems are correctable with �image
>> and
>> hype based answers�, and not true transit and service based answers.
>> F. Aaarrgggg�.
>>
>> As long as the system exceeds others is a long assumption, and just
>> exceeding the street traffic is completely unacceptable in mass transit.
>> If
>> for some reason the system does not exceed others by a wide margin, and
>> snow
>> causes major tie-ups, the riders are tied-up, alone, way up there in the
>> air. They are not going to walk out on a snow-covered guideway and get
>> easily to the ground in ten-degree weather at 6:30pm, in the dark, on a
>> snowy late rush hour evening in a 25 mph wind - on anybody�s concept of a
>> walkway. Let�s say you only strand 600 people that evening: how many
>> induced heart attacks in the elderly do you think will be required before
>> there are valid cries to tear the system out?
>>
>> Transit systems are not toys, and operations are not games, and the
>> responsibility that transit operators face every day would turn most of
>> us
>> who are not already grey, grey far quicker than expected.
>>
>> No system that does not undergo extensive, real world one-to-one scale
>> testing in snow conditions, is really a developed system � for winter
>> weather applications.
>>
>> I believe that there are two basic ways (with variations) to get this
>> testing. One is an extensive test track in a winter condition that
>> Cabintaxi has completed, or a limited smaller scale that faces some
>> elements
>> of winter weather, and then evolves slowly, as the testing and
>> development
>> allow, next to the limited operation. The latter approach is a high-risk
>> activity, and the former is a high-cost activity with variations in
>> between.
>> Take your pick.
>>
>> Morgantown is a good example of the latter, and the risk, which
>> demonstrated
>> itself politically, resulted in the delay of small vehicle systems
>> acceptance in transit, which continues now over 30 years � even though it
>> is
>> a very effective transit system.
>>
>> > Fran�ois just wait and watch. In the meantime, please challenge with
>> > open
>>
>> > eyes.
>>
>> Maybe I drank some Kool-Aid when I believe that certain systems are
>>
>> ready to be deployed. Maybe Brad is right, robocars will be available
>>
>> before we see the first PRT system with more than 3 stations
>>
>> operational.
>>
>> > Best wishes,
>>
>> > Marsden
>>
>
WALTER BREWER
And Kireton should chime in about now with his "we can build a snow-proof
enclosure" argument.
For the more general subject though, including ordinary roads, there ought
to be a more imaginative study and experimentatation for snow and especially
ice. The typical snowplow turns fresh snow into hard packed snow that might
as well be ice. Many times it is safer and more controllable to drive in the
snow in the firsy place.
Over many years, on and off I've though of ideas, but never really got
serious. I contacted a project on the subject at a University, I think in
Wisconsin without a reply. Ditto for an auto insurance company.
The first thought, heat may work within reason for very small areas. But the
state change BTU for water is about as high as it gets. So that approach is
out for ordinary roads.
Vaious kinds of toothed cutters, and sweepers probably can be made to work,
especially with power to drive, oscilate, etc them. But that's very hard on
the road surface.
There is a company in Finland, Vammas, that builds snow/ice removal for
airport runways that claims dry pavement. I think it uses pretty much this
mechanical approach, and uses large sweepers.
Why not for roads? I don't know. Probably caost. I believe Logan Airport in
Boston uses this approach.
As noted, there is the problem if you do manage to melt, with water
disposal, especially re-freeze makes things worse. (I'm surprised at the
lack of reaction to the pictures I sent of the sliding 18 wheeler.)
So there may be advantage to the mechanical approach. One approach, and I've
not seen eveidence of a trial, is very high pressure air jets, perhaps
pulsing. Maybe in combination with a thumper to crack up the ice.
I've tried the thumper in my driveway, and ice cracks very readily. I don't
know how to get hold of a really high pressure jet machine though.
There are now chemicals less corrosive than salt, but more expensive. Still
leaves a slushy mess.
So I think there is pay dirt for some bright ideas.
Walt Brewer
Marsden Burger
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:27 PM
To: transport-innovators
Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
WRT snow and ice, I don't think we are talking about getting stranded,
just the system going VERY slowly if traction is reduced, headways
must be increased to safe distances, same as happens (should) with
other rubber tyred vehicles. Hills might have to be heated or somehow
made safe though.
[Marsden Burger]
Stick one vehicle in a merge switch situation, and watch what happens as two critical lines of PRT vehicles, which cannot back up, come to a stop. The start up process for a stalled PRT system is challenging at best from many aspects - surge power requirement is one. If the system is a through the wheel drive system, and you are standing while they clear the “frozen” vehicle in a significant snowstorm, how much accumulation is need to cause mayhem on system restart. If the system does not restart cleanly, how many other vehicles create interference? I think you get the point.
WRT where can Cabintaxi be built, does that only leave large corporate
campuses or other privately owned lands?
[Marsden Burger]
The Cabintaxi technology can be built in many places, as it is not only a PRT system, but also a small vehicle transit system with many variations in size vehicles. A PRT vehicle makes a poor single vehicle shuttle. The German hospital application never operated as PRT but created value for over 26 years. We believe that the private sector is the only market for the introduction of small vehicle systems at this point. I view both LHR and Masdar in effect as private sector systems, when they are compared to London, Hamburg, of Chicago.
WRT "Pod cars have no appeal to the elderly - personally, I do not
like the name" I meant, why do pod cars have no appeal for the
elderly (or is it just the name, not the service?) Personally, I
think it's better than PRT as a name.
[Marsden Burger]
First is believe PRT is extremely detrimental to the effort for small vehicle transit system. Based on its past history of controversy, it is a major negative in finding support, building systems and improving our cities. If I could wave a wand, I would erase the acronym from ever having been created.
When I said the elderly do not like Pod cars, that was unfair of me toward the name. I was thinking of the fact that over the years in the thousands of discussions that I have been in on this topic, the elderly that I have talked with tend not to like the idea of being up in the air alone, and the Pod seemed to me to make that condition sound more emphatic. Do not ask the ratio, because I do not know it – just the feeling that I have gotten. AT the same time, they, like the majority, like the idea of the service that the systems can provide.
If I overstate, keep your eyes open, and slap me up along the side of the head! J
Best wishes,
Marsden
--
Kirston Henderson
>From: "WALTER BREWER" <catc...@verizon.net>
>To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to nowhere/small vehicle-GRT
>Date: 20, Oct, 2010, 3:41 PM
>
> You beat me to it!!
>
> And Kireton should chime in about now with his "we can build a snow-proof
> enclosure" argument.
>
Our wheelways with their inverted slot for axle penetration to the
wheel, etc. is actually equivalent to having the wheels in an overhead
guideway such as that used in the German H-bahn except that ours are under
the vehicles. I have never heard of any snow or ice problems with the
H-Bahn.
Jack Slade
Marsden, the elderly people I have talked to all liked the idea, provided the walking distance was acceptable....that is, as short as possible. Many of them have to visit hospitals for check-ups, etc, which makes for awkward bus trips if you can't drive. Estimates are that 35% of our population do not drive, but could be well served by PRT. You also have to get to one basic idea....if guideways are as cheap as possible, you get to cover far more real estate better for the same money, providing better coverage, less walking, and no schedules.
I don't want to get into any long discussions of system merits, just pointing out some basic facts.
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eph
MegaRail systems. Alternately, they could be heated like railway
switches.
It should be possible to manage guideway snow and ice better than for
roadways using similar techniques. Not sure why podcars can't back
up, both 2getthere and ULTra can back into/out of station berths. In
a problem situation, this might require remote driver assistance.
F.
>
> read more »
Marsden Burger
F.
We know that it is possible to develop system that work in snow and ice.
Cabintaxi already did all of this development, and demonstrated to outside authorities, who monitor the entire government controlled development process, that the system would meet all of the safety requirements for very short headway operation (less than 3 seconds) in snow and ice.
I am also not saying these issues cannot be managed. I am only saying that building systems expected to work in snow and ice, without testing them in snow and ice, is a very risky way of developing systems. Coming back with solutions for problems learned only after installation can create maintenance headaches, or far worse.
I am absolutely sure that the Otis air cushion system can be managed in snow and ice. My suggestion is that we have a robo-zamboni
running down the guideway ahead of each trip it makes! J J
There you go Otis, now you can bid on the Edmonton light rail projects.
--
eph
proposal for the 1/2 billion going to Boondoggle Rail in Detroit?
If a 1/2 billion dollars can't get Cabintaxi up and running (again) in
6 years... I just don't get it.
F.
On Oct 20, 7:13 pm, Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> We know that it is possible to develop system that work in snow and ice.
>
> Cabintaxi already did all of this development, and demonstrated to outside
> authorities, who monitor the entire government controlled development
> process, that the system would meet all of the safety requirements for very
> short headway operation (less than 3 seconds) in snow and ice.
>
> I am also not saying these issues cannot be managed. I am only saying that
> building systems expected to work in snow and ice, without testing them in
> snow and ice, is a very risky way of developing systems. Coming back with
> solutions for problems learned only after installation can create
> maintenance headaches, or far worse.
>
> I am absolutely sure that the Otis air cushion system can be managed in snow
> and ice. My suggestion is that we have a robo-zamboni
>
> > can
>
> > > we suggest that turning down $500 million in government job stimulation
> is
>
>
> read more »
>
> image002.jpg
> 38KViewDownload
Marsden Burger
Jack,
I agree. Elderly are really going to appreciate the service that small vehicle systems can provide. If you talk with the poor about the alternative of having to take a bus in our community, there would be no issues. At the same time, if you talk about being fifteen feet up in the air in a small vehicle, verse being on the ground in a car, see what the response is. These are trade-offs that we all need to make, and I do not believe that the elderly will not choose the elevated service, just that being up in the air in a small vehicle alone, is not the most positive part of the trade-offs. At the same time, it is probably better than being up in the air with someone they do not know.
Forgetting the merits of any given system, “if the guideways are as cheap as possible” is the key phrase here. I have never met a small vehicle development team that has not wanted the guideway to be as cheap as possible – all good engineers – and I have never seen a guideway that meets safety standards that is as inexpensive as the theorized guideways of those who would have small vehicle systems covering the suburbs. Where is the disconnect between the theory and reality? Is it all because those that have developed systems are bad engineers, and those that have not are good engineers? The development process is long and hard, and it is the hardest as you get deeper in, as the art of correcting mistakes pushes the plan further and further from what one hoped for. With luck, your plans were well conceived, and you are not pushed to the point of development failure – but still, well over 90% of all transit system developments for advanced technologies fail. Everyone that starts this honorable effort believes that they will not be in this 90%, and yet, 9 out of 10 always are.
I believe that urban areas adapt and population subsets shift to take advantage of the amenities that are available. Like the elderly moving out of large homes into smaller ones, or moving from multi-stories to single levels, our population is in constant motion to adapt. Presently, our urban areas are not able to provide transit services that make the elderly comfortable, and most retirement facilities for the better off seem to be isolated in the suburbs where the patrons can get a van trip twice a week to somewhere. I would suggest that many of our elderly would be happy to have a retirement facility within an urban area, close to an automated vehicle station that can take them safely anywhere in a thriving urban community - great restaurants where you can stay as long as you want, and not worry that the van is leaving in a half hour.
Best wishes,
Marsden
Marsden Burger
Are you talking philosophy here, or do you not understand the United States Federal funding process here that controls the use of Federal funds?
Marsden
> Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:53:57 -0700
> Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to no/ snow and ice
> From: rhaps...@yahoo.com
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
eph
snow and ice for example and that it's at a higher level of
development than some deployed systems.
Given this, I wonder if it wouldn't be worth the effort to put a
proposal out there. Get people on side by comparing and contrasting
with LRT. Maybe get the private investors to fund whatever is needed
to meet federal funding criteria, then build it in the city. It
doesn't have to be long and super detailed, maybe a description the
length of a newspaper article with a picture of the system?
I know it's almost an act of faith and irrational to work on something
that likely won't have a payoff, but Cabintaxi is undeniably a better
solution than what is being proposed. So what's missing is people
finding out about this better solution, as I see it.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea? I won't push this
anymore...
F.
On Oct 22, 9:19 am, Marsden Burger <cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> Are you talking philosophy here, or do you not understand the United States Federal funding process here that controls the use of Federal funds?
>
> Marsden
>
> > Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:53:57 -0700
> > Subject: [t-i] Re: Light rail train to no/ snow and ice
>
> read more »
Jerry Schneider
>You write (I'm paraphrasing) that Cabintaxi has been fully tested in
>snow and ice for example and that it's at a higher level of
>development than some deployed systems.
>
>Given this, I wonder if it wouldn't be worth the effort to put a
>proposal out there. Get people on side by comparing and contrasting
>with LRT. Maybe get the private investors to fund whatever is needed
>to meet federal funding criteria, then build it in the city. It
>doesn't have to be long and super detailed, maybe a description the
>length of a newspaper article with a picture of the system?
>
>I know it's almost an act of faith and irrational to work on something
>that likely won't have a payoff, but Cabintaxi is undeniably a better
>solution than what is being proposed. So what's missing is people
>finding out about this better solution, as I see it.
>
>Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea? I won't push this
>anymore...
Wouldn't a direct approach to the private funders, if possible, be
more likely to
gain some traction? If they can be convinced that they will be
embarrassed by the
functional failure of this project, might they reassess - or is the
potential loss of
all that free federal matching money to large a mountain to overcome?
Or, could
they be convinced that they will be heros if a Cabintaxi project is
selected and succeeds
is starting an new industry for Michigan? Without knowing something about
the motivations of the private funders, it's impossible to tell what
they know or don't know.
It would certainly be hard to find a more irrational project to focus on.
Marsden Burger
Since this seems to add to both of the issues of pole collisions and the
extent of system testing that Cabintaxi has gone through, I thought the blog
might find these images of interest.
What is shown in these three images is the crash testing of a full city bus
into a Cabintaxi support column, while the Cabintaxi system is operating
carrying at least one passenger.
This is an example that not only lends support to Kriston's thoughts about
the ability of some columns to withstand impact, but demonstrates the
unprecedented level of thoroughness that the Cabintaxi program carried out.
The system continued operation through the crash. The column the was
impacted was later changed out to demonstrate the ability of a longer
cantilever to support the structure.
The design of the guideway allowed for the complete loss of a column without
the structure coming down. Clearly it would take a larger impact than that
of the bus shown in these images.
Best wishes,
Marsden
F.
--
Jerry Roane
Marsden Burger
Jerry,
The vehicle that you see operating during the test is a under running 12 passenger vehicle. It is what I have referred to as small vehicle GRT, in that it has a seated three passenger cross section. It is what gives simple starter systems the ability to compete quickly with light rail in a simple loop format, and yet go on to larger networks where three or six passenger vehicles can provide small vehicle origin to destination service that unfortunately has led to the controversial use of the term PRT. Small vehicle systems is a far better term, IMO. The guideway is the same size as a three passenger system guideway.
The guideway that you see here is one in the foreground. The actual guideway impacted is hidden by the camera angle.
Remember, this was before we had some of the abilities today for the automated operation of vehicles. However, we had a very dedicated team, so for the driver, we just asked for volunteers. J Ok, that was meant to be a joke, its late…
No actually this was a significant problem as the automated steering was not easy to work out at that time – 1976 I believe – and the whole test was quite a costly effort. They wanted to be sure it hit the post square. You can see also a little road built for this on a significant grade to help to get the bus up to speed quickly.
I was not with the team then, and what I am relating I learned from discussions after joining. They did have many measurements taken throughout the test effort, track, bus, and operating vehicle/s – I am not sure of the number running at the time.
Personally, I would have found it interesting to use a cement truck, but I do not think they really wanted that severe of a crash, and the related track down time. Even though the later design expects the guideway to stand with a column severed – so no vehicles come down – the track would be out of commission.
Marsden
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jerry Roane
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010
11:46 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Marsden Burger
Jerry,
There was one person in the Cabintaxi vehicle that you see, and while I am not sure, I would bet it was the only vehicle in operation at the time of the impact. It was all probably time to show the operating vehicle at the time of impact, but again, I was not there at the time.
Marsden
Marsden Burger
F.
No new transit development has ever gone through the thorough successfully completed development of the Cabintaxi system.
It is not that the United States government does not know this. Quoting from the U.S. Department of Transportation report # UMTA-MA-060076-77-02, page 1-2: "The latter point reflects the German approach to fielding of new systems, which is characterized by an extensive and lengthy development period to refine the design of individual components in order to reduce the risks associated with implementation. The Cabintaxi/Cabinlift technology is the result of an iterative design process which began in 1969 and has been greatly aided by the use of a large and sophisticated test facility in Hagen since 1973. Page 1-4 "An unusually extensive test facility has been constructed in Hagen, Germany." (Report written in 1977 while the system development stopped in effectively 1980.)
The reason that the Congress Office of Technology Assessment said in 1980, the “broad international leadership in the transit technology field is no longer a credible prospect for the U.S. industry.”, was because they knew full well that the Cabintaxi technology existed, and expected with the successful installation in Hamburg, the system would continue to other cities around the world.
Remember, the Cabintaxi system was slated for an application in Hamburg. I have made this statement easily a thousand times, but I have to explain to people what it means.
The Hamburg Hochbahn, (Hamburg Elevated Railway) is to Hamburg as the Toronto Transit Commission is to Toronto. This is a very respected transit authority. They preformed the feasibility study of the Cabintaxi system application planned for Hamburg. This is not the study for the application of a test demo going into a parking lot where an actual fleet is assembled for the first time. The Hagen test track had twice the number of vehicles as Heathrow has now, and hundreds of thousands of miles of fleet testing. The Hamburg project was the application of a system that would be larger than the Scarborough line in Toronto, and every bit as serious. The study was based on a transit system that was already understood between the government agencies to be a major urban transit technology, because the testing had been so thorough in Hagen and overseen by the German Federal Railway safety experts.
Here are three levels of detail from the feasibility study:
<<...>>
Above is the course network level.
<<...>>
Above is a closer view of a segment of the guideway layout. Real streets, real buildings, real station location plans.
<<...>>
Above is the detailed layout of a station plan, as planned for every station in the network of the feasibility study. Real guideway curve radii, real elevation planning.
The document that I am drawing these from is the executive summary of the feasibility study that showed the viability of the system and let to the go-ahead to start installation in Hamburg. Again, this work is not being done by the Cabintaxi Joint Venture, although we were a part of it, it was being led by the Hamburg Hochbahn under the auspices of the German Government’ Ministry of Research and Technology. What followed on was the final designs of all of the initial loop of the network and preparations for the actual construction. We were two weeks away from the start of construction, after six years of planning and preparation, when the project stopped. If the Scarborough line had been stopped two weeks from construction because of budget cuts, after the TTC’s years of preparation, would anyone have doubted the TTC’s opinion and efforts related to the system's readiness. It is the same with the Hamburg Hochbahn and Cabintaxi.
"So what's missing is people
finding out about this better solution, as I see it."
Some thought on this in the next post.
--
Michael Weidler
| Frankly, i think the better idea is to extend the People Mover as Marsden has suggested. Step one is more guideway. Step 2 is to reduce the size of and otherwise light-weight the rolling stock when it needs replacement. Step 3 is to use the weight savings in Step 2 to reduce guideway size and cost in follow on guideway. Step 4 replace the current control system to allow a more PRT/GRT off guideway functionality. --- On Fri, 10/22/10, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
WALTER BREWER
their overhead wire?
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marsden Burger" <Cabint...@msn.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 10:29 PM
Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: Light rail / DOT
Jerry Roane
Marsden Burger
Jerry,
I thought you were in favor of a cement truck, now you do not want to be in the vehicle…J
The column at the time of impact was probably three years old if that is of use in your thinking.
Best wishes,