Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
Frank Lee Mideer
- Instead of curving around the station, the main track dips 3 m (10 ft.) to
clear the station. Acceleration and deceleration can compensate for much of the
motion.
- The off-line track rises 3 m, regaining potential energy without regenerative
braking and making the slowdown/speedup ramps smoother.
- A modular design combining an elevator shaft which services up to 16 vehicles
of 6-passengers. This was chosen arbitrarily and needs to be refined based on
elevator service parameters. It could be 8 vehicles or 24 or more. 2 modules
are shown.
- Elevator door open on both sides (as needed) to allow simultaneous entry/exit.
- Ground level routing and payment could lessen wait by shifting the elevator
trip to (wasted) wait time.
- Cabintaxi is illustrated with 2-level stations and over and under guideways.
- Many parts of the model need to be refined, this is to discuss the concept.
F.
Marsden Burger
It took a couple looks to see how you meant it to function.
Some initial thoughts.
You will need at least a set of stairs capable of handling max platform load plus some extra for safety, and in some jurisdictions potentially escalators.
While many concepts look at the idea of sinking guideway, the costs involved in the fabrication of such structures is quite high for any system. In general, the costs involved with any curved structure is quite high. When you add a spiral into it, which you must do to avoid the jerking motion, the cost goes up. Then when you combine vertical curves and spirals, with horizontal curves, again the cost rise more.
Also, the carrying capacity of the system you are showing is pushing into the level of heavy rail. I understand that you want the system to have the appearance of competing one to one with light rail, but light rail only runs in a pinched loop configuration because that is the only logical way to go in both directions - one way train operations makes little since in any application. You are limiting the advantage of small vehicle operation if you do not play to its strengths of providing larger area coverage. This is especially true it your modeling the Cabintaxi two way system, which unlike light rail, can cover more of a transit corridor while still providing two way service.
More thoughts later.
Marsden
> Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:27:24 -0700
> From: rhaps...@yahoo.com
> Subject: [t-i] Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> 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
On Oct 28, 12:42 pm, Marsden Burger <cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> It took a couple looks to see how you meant it to function.
>
> Some initial thoughts.
>
> You will need at least a set of stairs capable of handling max platform load plus some extra for safety, and in some jurisdictions potentially escalators.
>
be the main mover. I haven't investigated which codes are needed in
the target cities. I though sets of ladders along the elevator shaft
might work or drop-down emergency stairs or something of that nature.
It would have just cluttered this initial design.
> While many concepts look at the idea of sinking guideway, the costs involved in the fabrication of such structures is quite high for any system. In general, the costs involved with any curved structure is quite high. When you add a spiral into it, which you must do to avoid the jerking motion, the cost goes up. Then when you combine vertical curves and spirals, with horizontal curves, again the cost rise more.
>
coaster track? If a dozen stations are built with the same curves/
spirals (which aren't that complicated), it should bring the cost down
of the 48 identical dip/rise sections with the regular turnouts (left
and right).
> Also, the carrying capacity of the system you are showing is pushing into the level of heavy rail. I understand that you want the system to have the appearance of competing one to one with light rail, but light rail only runs in a pinched loop configuration because that is the only logical way to go in both directions - one way train operations makes little since in any application. You are limiting the advantage of small vehicle operation if you do not play to its strengths of providing larger area coverage. This is especially true it your modeling the Cabintaxi two way system, which unlike light rail, can cover more of a transit corridor while still providing two way service.
>
alighting, 6 bays can be used to load and 2 bays to alight. Which
means 2 s headways can be handled - which maxes out the line at 1800
vehicles per hour at each level (speed reduced - haven't checked if
it's possible yet), 3600 total with up to 6 people which is better
than LRT can handle, but with 1.3 per vehicle, we get 4680 which is
9360 for both guideways per direction. This comfortably matches/
exceeds LRT.
A single module would be sufficient for most stations, I agree.
As to the coverage, loops off the main line, integration into building
etc. will have to be looked at as upgrades. This is just to start
talking about how PRT (podcars) can replace LRT.
> More thoughts later.
>
> Marsden
>
> > Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:27:24 -0700
Michael Weidler
| Nice job, Frank! --- On Thu, 10/28/10, Frank Lee Mideer <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
Frank Lee Mideer
staircase up to the first level (could be broken up by a platform) Second
staircase wraps around the first to get from the top level to the first.
I think we must keep in mind that these models are not architecture drawing,
they are meant to first give a rough idea of what the system might look like so
it can be tweaked, reworked and improved. When a design becomes stable enough,
it can be improved with more detail. It is very useful to be able to visualize
an idea though and remove or work around any obvious errors.
F.
Marsden Burger
Frank,
Here is a station laid out by the Hamburg Hochbahn to interface with their subway and street railways. Its peak hour estimate is in the range of 10 to 12 thousand. We provided this information to San Jose when they asked how a small vehicle system could interface with a rail line. It may be of use to you as you look at stair requirements, and in general as you refine your design.
Best wishes,
Marsden
The Barmbek Station boarded 17,000-plus passengers between 5:00 and 9:00 AM. To meet the needs, two over-and-under guideways, equating to four vehicle lanes of Cabintaxi traffic, interface with the high speed commuter line, shown below, in the following fashion designed in cooperation with the Hamburg operating property:
Below one sees the layout of the over-and-under station design aimed at handling the interface to a surface rail line (S-Bahn) and a subway (U-Bahn). While we would doubt that the San Jose light rail line will be handling these volumes, plans to accommodate this level of transit service were already developed for the Cabintaxi technology. Here the station layouts include escalators as well as stairs and elevators. Eight station boarding areas are shown for the Cabintaxi system at this key station. The parallel surface and subway lines feed the Cabintaxi station from the south. This is serious transit, and no system can handle these intense passenger flows without major platforms and structures to dissipate and absorb these volumes.
--
TanLienChiow
break. It is about 17 steps with a landing.
Tan Lien Chiow
EzNO
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Lee Mideer
Sent: Saturday, 30 October, 2010 8:52 AM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [t-i] Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
(Stairs)
F.
eph
It works out to 12' rise or 3.66 m, so 2 landing are needed.
The stairs are also a bit too steep, should be an 8" rise(or less) for
a 10" tread.
F.
Jerry Roane
WALTER BREWER
Marsden Burger
How does the dropping of vehicles to the ground level effect the station tru-put? For me this has always been the problem with this approach.
Best wishes,
Marsden
From: catc...@verizon.net
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway (Stairs)
Marsden Burger
I am glad to see that you are not mad.
If you go on Jerry's site, you will find a system that will use your office in a building as a vehicle within a maglev system. It will pull out of the building you are housed in and join the main line, where it will take off at speeds up to 300 miles per hour and travel to a ski resort in the mountains or to your cottage on a lake - all the time you are still sitting at your desk conducting business. This system can go from no prototype development - but they do have an animated video - to an operational installation in 18 months. It would be great if they are successful in their efforts.
I generally do not include statements about what concept systems plans to accomplish (plans with which I would have no idea in their totality) in generalized statements about transit systems. I am unaware of any existing public transit elevated structures where curved guideway sections cost the same as straight sections. I would be happy to learn of them.
Our business model is to own and operate transit systems, making a return through the value the service creates. In this regard, we are not wed to the Cabintaxi technology - we have it because we recognized long ago, it was the best urban transit technology ever developed and had the courage to act on our convictions. (My wife might say the stupidity to act.) We would like to reach a point where we can support logical transit system development. We are convinced that at some point there will be improvements over the Cabintaxi technology - we know of nothing better today that could immediately initiate a beginning operational segment at the same level of low risk.
I wish you every success in your efforts. Reducing the cost of transit system guideways is very important.
Best wishes,
Marsden
Best wishes,
Marsden
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:51:13 -0500
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway (Stairs)
Jerry Roane
eph
I agree, 7" rise would be safer/more standard and not add much to the
cost.
The stairs are for emergency escape only, the elevator is the main
mover in regular service. An escape ladder might suffice for the
unlikely case it may be needed and for the low number of people on the
platform at any time. The stairs were added just so there is a design
that can be submitted if needed. I would put escape ladders on either
side of the elevator shaft or at each end of the platform. The escape
ladder shafts could even be structural or built around a structural
element.
I'm amazed by the extrusion process you are suggesting and it's
potential for inexpensive guideway. I'm going to start a thread on
Tritrack for light freight I think.
Walt,
I think for Detroit and Ottawa the podcar elevator idea (which has
merit) is too advanced. I'm focusing on a deliverable system with the
idea that more innovation can come later, perhaps at other sites once
the ball is rolling.
F.
On Oct 30, 9:51 am, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> If you build stairs with the wrong rise many people will trip on them. The
> worst trap is to change rise over run on a single step like they do in
> Opera theaters. The ushers are there to catch people when they fall trying
> to step the standard step on the non-standard step spacing. The landing is
> for weaker people but it also provides a physiological break to the steps.
> You cannot go all the way to 8 inches on a step. Lots of people will fall
> on them. 7 is more standard and for 1 inch there is no significant
> advantage. Our guideway bends down using our patented process of straight
> extrusion then as the material is coming out of the extruder we bend it
> slightly and appropriately to create curves compatible with high speed that
> are computer curved. This is counter to an earlier claim that curves cost
> more than straight. In our case the guideway is never straight like with a
> straight edge but constantly curved resulting in the best ride possible with
> tightly bracketed weight cars. We use our device to get to the customer
> rather than making the customer work to get to us. Imagine two side by side
> systems on the same door exit. One you have to climb stars the other you
> take two steps and hop in. Which will get more business?
>
> Jerry Roane
>
> > .
> > 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
> > .
Gary Penn
WALTER BREWER
Jack Slade
|
Jerry Roane
WALTER BREWER
And what are you going to do if you find them?There was a sketch recently, Mister maybe, which showed sloping guidways into and from street level station. Looked like reasonable amount of land.Maybe stack the waiting pods verticle to save some land even though they attach at street level?
Jack Slade
Walt, I don't know your City well, but I do know a few others, so I am just talking about what I see as an added expense in most of the Cities that I know. I also don't know the prices in those places, but presume thay are as inflated as here.
I also don't know what it is like in Poland, but I remember Ollie saying that Opole is a City of about 100,000 . In a small place like that perhaps you can find space at grade, so you just have to solve the snow clearing problem, which you do not have even if you are 8 feet up.
We are talking about the cost of getting a system accepted by some City, are we not? Would you want to make this a deal-killer? If you are not able to use an elevator, I can see your problem, but should it cost your City millions of dollars? |
Kirston Henderson
As far as being able to install any ground-level, system, it is probably out of the realm of reality in most places.
Frank Lee Mideer
station.
Smaller elevators tend to be slower and limited in their number of starts per
hour, often 180 , which is one every 2 minutes. It may be cheaper to build 2
stations than a centre-island station, though having 2 heavy-duty elevators
available might be better than 2 lighter duty singles for redundancy. Also,
each elevator can service one level which is not possible in a single elevator,
double platform single guideway configuration.
Latest station design attached. Elevator doors located, staircase fixed, second
shaft added.
Analysis:
With a 3(or 4?) car station, we can move one car per 6 seconds assuming a 12 s
load
time and 6 s unload time. Is it 4 cars because we need time to advance the
vehicles after unloading?
Assuming the door open/close cycle on the elevator is 6 s and a 6 s transit
time, we need 24 s for a full up-down cycle, so 4 cars must be loaded. A 24
person elevator would carry the max. of people, but this is probably overkill,
plus the elevator shaft must be larger, so this is 18/4 = 4.5/podcar(avg.).
Since there are 2 levels, two 18-person elevators are needed per 3 car station.
This assumes a regular situation where
one direction of travel greatly exceeds the other.
example:
KONE 3000 MiniSpace
Rated Speed : 2.5 m/s
Capacity : 1600 kg
Machine : MRL (Machine Room-Less)
Shaft Size : 2800 mm (W) x 2150 mm (D)
http://www.kone.com/countries/en_CN/products/hospital/passenger_elevators/3000minispace/Pages/default.aspx
F.
Marsden Burger
What would that look like as a single level station using just the over running vehicles. As a 6 or 12 passenger small vehicle GRT system, that would easily compete with light rail.
Best wishes,
Marsden
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:21:28 -0700
> From: rhaps...@yahoo.com
> Subject: [t-i] Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>
eph
it's just for future expansion. Otherwise, there is no advantage over
Vectus, other than being Detroit based and there is no room for growth
as the system expands to 15 mile road and beyond.
Is the cost too high to compete with rail otherwise? Or are you
thinking about using the people mover track for one of the pinched
loops?
Collective vehicles are not the goal, I think, that gives away much of
the advantage of a raised system.
F.
On Oct 31, 12:08 pm, Marsden Burger <cabintaxic...@msn.com> wrote:
> Frank,
>
> What would that look like as a single level station using just the over running vehicles. As a 6 or 12 passenger small vehicle GRT system, that would easily compete with light rail.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marsden
>
> > Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 08:21:28 -0700
Marsden Burger
Maybe I am losing you here, or you are losing me.
Your goal, I thought, was to show the good citizens of Detroit, how a
Cabintaxi system is going to look and be superior to light rail - all the
time trying to keep the "advanced" system within the realm of reality.
There is no real project in Detroit for any advanced system, and there will
not be involving federal money without a Presidential mandate. Therefore,
this is an exercise to allow the citizens to see an alternative, and express
their support for something more effective - maybe getting the President
Obama's ear. (Probably not, but who knows.)
I assume by only referencing Vectus, you recognize their willingness to
address snow conditions which are an important issue in Detroit. Still,
they are a long way from being able to address a real US government
competitive procurement, and if our mythical project were to come into
existence by a Presidential mandate, you are probably right, it would only
be an American system mandated.
How do you see the goal again?
Best wishes,
Marsden
eph
that it will cost between $400 million and $500 million. It is
pointless to demonstrate a superior system that doesn't have a real
price tag, the same way the LRT system has a price tag. If they were
to go for it, however unlikely that is, it should be deliverable.
I'm working on a system for Ottawa also.
Now I'm confused. Why only top-running and for GRT? In that
configuration, Vectus is a direct competitor. With over and under,
not so much.
F.
Marsden Burger
F.
I love it! Believe me, it is as easy to make up a cost without a study, as
it is to make up a cost with a study. :) :)
Any of us doing this for years, and is current on the latest projects, could
come up with a cost estimate quickly that is going to be as close as this
Detroit study estimate. It is just no one believes it, as we need to be
paid millions to do the verification study of the approximate price we
already know. :) :) I am smiling, but it is true. If you were a close
friend of anyone at a major consulting firm, they would tell you the same
thing.
However, I had forgotten that you are working on something for Ottawa also,
so let me think about a better response and get back to you.
eph
GRT.
F.
WALTER BREWER
Michael Weidler
| We already have them....They're called brothels!!! ROFLMAO! --- On Sat, 10/30/10, Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> wrote: |
Frank Lee Mideer
Boarding was 12 s and alighting was 6 s (plus some time to advance the vehicle).
So a 6 second elevator ride (this may be optimistic) a 12 s alighting and
boarding, and a another elevator ride is 24 s total to handle 2 vehicles at a
time. It takes 4 elevators (for the top and bottom "stations") to match the 2
smaller elevators in the original design. The platform is also 6 times longer.
Not sure how useful this design is. Some safety doors will be needed on the
bottom level and some way to keep snow/ice from fowling things would be needed.
Vehicles on top can use either of 2 elevators. They can get podcars from either
side, turn while descending then return to either direction. Same idea with the
2 elevators for bottom running vehicles.
I've added a turntable feature to solve a separate problem - how to do a U-turn
with a large turn radius restriction.
F.
Jack,
Walt Brewer
Jack Slade
--- On Sat, 10/30/10, WALTER BREWER <catca...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Walt Brewer
Jack Slade
<catca...@verizon.net> wrote:
Walt,
Best wishes,
Marsden
----------------------------------------------------
From: catca...@verizon.net
F.
Jerry Roane
F.
> Tan Lien Chiow
> EzNO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-
innov...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:transport-
innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Lee Mideer
> Sent: Saturday, 30 October, 2010
8:52 AM
> To: transport-
> Subject: [t-i] Centre Island Station
design for bi-directional Guideway
> (Stairs)
> Here is a stair design. The station
has been made transparent. Straight
> staircase up to the first level
(could be broken up by a platform) Second
> staircase wraps around the first to
get from the top level to the first.
> I think we must keep in mind that
these models are not architecture drawing,
> they are meant to first give a rough
idea of what the system might look like
> so
> it can be tweaked, reworked and
improved. When
...
read more »
WALTER BREWER
line for loading and attachment/arrival at the sideline guideway any
different, except for the time to move the occupied pod from elevator to
guideway? And there is just one human entry time.
Walt Brewer
F.
Jack,
Walt Brewer
Jack Slade
Walt Brewer
Jack Slade
Walt,
Best wishes,
Marsden
F.
Jerry Roane
F.
> Tan Lien Chiow
> EzNO
...
read more �
eph
text says something about "destination coding and ticket cancelling"
and "waiting for automatic start" for boarding time. Do you have
better references for boarding and alighting figures?
WRT vehicle elevators, I used 12 s for both loading and alighting
(maybe it would be longer?) I also forgot the time needed to move the
vehicle(s) into place, so throughput would be affected by that.
F.
>
> read more »
Marsden Burger
F.
Just out of interest, and to be better informed on your issues, I looked at your Ottawa light rail project.
Just some general comments:
Having worked in the United States and Canada on transit projects, transit is far more serious in most of the Canadian cities. Canadian operators are far superior in general to those in the US cities of comparable size, and transit planning and projects are aimed at supplying service to the citizens as a real component of the process and selection.
In the United States, the real goal is using the concept of public transit for the "poor and needy" as a justification to get federal funds for job creation, service of the systems often not even a secondary consideration. I recognize this is a general observation, but I have observed this over and over again in our country. L (Of course, the poor and needy do not want to use poor transit service any more than those who are better off, and “forcing” people into transit should not be the approach - providing systems that provide better service should be the approach thus "attracting" user into a better option that they "want" to use.)
To see this lack of concern for service in our Detroit effort, if you look at the Woodward Corridor route, at about the four-mile mark, a mile to the east is the City of Hamtramck. It is the densest city in Michigan at over 10,000 people per square mile, and a population that is pedestrian oriented – these residents, mostly of Polish decent, walk within their community and would use transit. Not one of the plans in discussion ever proposed reaching this obvious transit ridership. Go on Google Earth, look at the difference between the density of this enclave and that of the rest of the Woodward corridor, and explain if the planning cared about serving people how this population is ignored. It is ignored because the decision process is political not service directed.
Hamtramck is also the area of choice for students of Wayne State to live as it is safe and inexpensive – it just take one to two hours to travel the two miles by public transit to get to school.
Regarding the level of a “Boondoggle”, I would suggest that we are more in that category here in Detroit, than you are in Ottawa.
While it seems that there are a lot of people that would like to define all the intricate variation in the term, light rail, the reality is that rail is rail, and the little variations there are help consultants to propose more options and make it look like consultants are worth their money. The term “light rail” came about under Jimmy Carter, the only President that was an engineer in my lifetime. While considering the issues of transit project funding, he suggested (referring to many efforts, but the Washington METRO system in particular, {not the exact quote}) that “transit projects were to ‘heavily’ designed.” Literally, within months, nearly all planning for rail projects in the US started calling their projects “Light Rail.” Who wanted to try to get funding for rail if the head of the administration was against it? Unfortunately the confusion of the term has stuck. Another politically created term with little meaning, making decision makers doubt the credibility of the entire field.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your Ottawa “boondoggle” appears to be a grade separated rail system using subway for the downtown and what seems to be cuts to provide most of the remaining grade separation. If it is all grade separated, this will allow faster safer system operation than the Detroit situation that must compete the entire way with grade crossings. The Ottawa system is reaching communities where people would actually use the system and bring riders into the downtown core. While the costs are significantly higher, the use of a subway through the downtown core is without question less intrusive for urban integration than elevated systems – if it is worth it is debatable, but urban subways dramatically strengthen the city.
Once the Detroit systems leaves the three mile downtown area, there is little ridership to be expected from areas of mostly abandoned city, culminating its eight miles with a final stop at an abandoned State Fair ground and a large graveyard. While Jerry,S. pointed out that travelers from some senior centers would be fewer than normal residential developments, I would suggest, that the system users from the unused fair grounds and the large graveyard might even be less.
In addition, a friend with a lot of bus knowledge indicates that Ottawa has a highly respected bus system. While skeptical of the claim, “light rail will reduce bus congestion creating a savings of $100 million a year in operating costs,” I would give it more credence than if such a statement was made by the Detroit operator, where it is considered a badge of honor for our heads of transportation agencies to be hired with no transit experience or knowledge what-so-ever.
All considered, I would think that you have little chance of changing the direction of Ottawa because their plan is significantly better than in Detroit,(not necessarily saying much) and there is little chance of changing the project in Detroit, because the leaders here do not care about the quality of the plan to begin with – it is all about getting the job creation money.
That said, I still like your idea to give people interested something else to consider, so here are some more responses to your questions:
I think it's important to keep the over and under capability even if it's just for future expansion. Otherwise, there is no advantage over Vectus, other than being Detroit based and there is no room for growth as the system expands to 15 mile road and beyond.
Again, Cabintaxi is designed to be an urban system. While we have long commutes all over the country, the desirable travel time is generally 30 minutes. This makes the desirable distances topping out about 12 miles – some further of course. The goal of the People Mover Expansion was not to connect the suburbs, although the People Mover is better for this than Cabintaxi, but to make mobility in the downtown easier, thus creating a greater pull for suburbanites to come to the urban core. Clearly, a significant Cabintaxi network running five to ten miles away from the center in every direction would create an area where “mobility freedom” would be far superior to the automobile in the suburbs, and the “urban draw” could justify connecting the core to outlying cities with faster modes and fewer stops.
Now I'm confused. Why only top-running and for GRT? In that configuration, Vectus is a direct competitor. With over and under, not so much.
Is the cost too high to compete with rail otherwise? Or are you thinking about using the people mover track for one of the pinched loops?
With the goal of showing interested people that there are better solutions, I am not concerned if comparisons are made to Vectus or any other small vehicle concept. At this point we are so far from an actual procurement that those issues will resolve themselves over time. Vectus is further from a full urban system than we are, and we are not doing anything without strong partners. If a market is not created somewhere, which is your goal, neither system will be competing for anything.
The reason for only top running, is that your double level station is about 50 feet in the air, and if you are trying to get the general public to accept the idea that this is better than light rail, I believe you will get the exact opposite reaction. If you want to do a direct comparison to a side by side light rail line, than a small vehicle GRT Cabintaxi approach can meet the demand requirements in the same format as light rail. This would not be my preferred approach, but you have now twice rejected the single line over-and-under applied in a long loop, which will also carry greater capacity than a light rail line. If you want to reject the simple design approach of the looping nature, and run in the light rail format of a pinched loop with the station design that you have come up with, then (and only then) am I suggesting that you go to only a single level, because the stations will be a lot lower and will not receive quite the negative reaction.
Collective vehicles are not the goal, I think, that gives away much of the advantage of a raised system.
The advantages of a raised system are that the vehicles travel from station to station without stopping, and that normal urban surface traffic of all modes can continue uninterrupted by the introduction of the new modal option. Smaller systems lower the cost of the elevated structures and smaller automated vehicle can respond better to the needs of the travelers through more customer oriented travel – thus increasing the advantage of an elevated system over the surface of subway option.
The issues between what size the vehicles should be, is very interesting. A strong case can be made that no small PRT network is worth the investment other then as a demonstration, and the low capacity that it demonstrates in this reduced setting can work against the chance of achieving the eventual larger system. A PRT shuttle that has difficulty performing that task, or is perceived to have problems with capacity, can make it very difficult to justify the larger investment in something that seems not really a significant transit investment to begin with. Inherently, a PRT shuttle can be a no win situation from the start – my concerns from day one with the LHR situation.
So, how do you get to a full small vehicle origin to destination system?
Considering using small vehicle systems for large government projects like the total systems in Detroit and Ottawa – not that I believe that this is logical or the way to go, but - I see the same basic problem: there is, unfortunately, no way to get to a PRT system as a first phase. If that is proposed, it will not be accepted. PRT needs a sizable network to show that it can move enough people to make any transit activity worthwhile. No one will want to take the leap of faith and put in a large network to start. If a small demonstration is proposed, then no one will think it is worth doing because it moves so few people.
All of the discussion about changing the Morgantown system to PRT, always faltered on the system’s present carrying capacity. There were suggestions that if more of a network was added, then PRT might be able to be applied. In other words, yes the Morgantown GRT works fine, but we could make it PRT if we just spend more money and put in more guideway and more vehicles, and then it will work somewhat better than fine – to serve a population that is served fine now......hmmmm.
I have shown these before, and they are on Jerry’s site, but they are worth considering. The first one is a small vehicle GRT over the same area as the second, which is PRT. If you look at the routing for the different lines that make up the GRT routes – combining to form the network – any of those lines can form a starter system and stand alone moving respectable numbers of passengers. PRT cannot start effectively like that. At the same time, small vehicle GRT can run in a PRT fashion with the flip of a switch, as Morgantown can today. PRT really requires a significant network to be a reasonable public investment. If PRT is all a system can do it is a major leap of faith no one has been willing to do for good reason. Even in this Hamburg setting, while the study showed higher ridership with small vehicle PRT in the large network once established, the Hamburg Hochbahn opted to get there by installing small vehicle GRT first in routes similar to those shown below. Again, if the system is so designed, the 12 passenger small vehicle GRT and switch during the off peak to full PRT operation – there is next to no difference in energy costs. In this fashion full network PRT can be developed in cooperation with a community, without the inherent risks of committing to a large network first – if so planned, small vehicle GRT and PRT can share the same network and evolve as demand suggests.
Your numerous questions about using the different levels for different vehicle sizes only seem to miss the point about why over-and-under is as advantageous as it is. You go back to from where you came as quickly as you came, and the networks costs are lower. If you relegate a given operating style to one level, than you have effectively created the inherent disadvantages of single level PRT, the need to loop back more frequently requiring again more vehicles and more guideway – higher costs and poorer service. To speculate that it is possible to develop a turntable device to reverse the flow of vehicles in a smaller turn radius, while an interesting thought, ignores the cost of development and testing required to inject this theory into a real system. The turntable would need to have a sub-three second headway capability carrying real people and travel at a speed as fast as the flow of traffic or dramatically restrict the flow of the guideway, in effect a centrifuge, or in station areas suffer more unclear issues. Your opposition would rightly rip this idea to shreds and use it to discredit the entire plan.
The Cabintaxi system works as designed. It can be laid out more effectively in most cases than light rail. It can be started small with little to no development risk and evolve to a full PRT system if desired.
I hope this explains my reasoning a bit more.
eph
> your Ottawa light rail project.
>
> Just some general comments:
>
> Having worked in the United States and Canada on transit projects, transit
> is far more serious in most of the Canadian cities. Canadian operators are
> far superior in general to those in the US cities of comparable size, and
> transit planning and projects are aimed at supplying service to the citizens
> as a real component of the process and selection.
>
> In the United States, the real goal is using the concept of public transit
> for the "poor and needy" as a justification to get federal funds for job
> creation, service of the systems often not even a secondary consideration.
> I recognize this is a general observation, but I have observed this over and
> "forcing" people into transit should not be the approach - providing systems
> that provide better service should be the approach thus "attracting" user
> into a better option that they "want" to use.)
>
> To see this lack of concern for service in our Detroit effort, if you look
> at the Woodward Corridor route, at about the four-mile mark, a mile to the
> east is the City of Hamtramck. It is the densest city in Michigan at over
> 10,000 people per square mile, and a population that is pedestrian oriented
> reaching this obvious transit ridership. Go on Google Earth, look at the
> difference between the density of this enclave and that of the rest of the
> Woodward corridor, and explain if the planning cared about serving people
> how this population is ignored. It is ignored because the decision process
> is political not service directed.
>
> Hamtramck is also the area of choice for students of Wayne State to live as
>
> Once the Detroit systems leaves the three mile downtown area, there is
> little ridership to be expected from areas of mostly abandoned city,
> culminating its eight miles with a final stop at an abandoned State Fair
> ground and a large graveyard. While Jerry,S. pointed out that travelers
> from some senior centers would be fewer than normal residential
> developments, I would suggest, that the system users from the unused fair
> grounds and the large graveyard might even be less.
>
> In addition, a friend with a lot of bus knowledge indicates that Ottawa has
> a highly respected bus system. While skeptical of the claim, "light rail
> will reduce bus congestion creating a savings of $100 million a year in
> operating costs," I would give it more credence than if such a statement was
> made by the Detroit operator, where it is considered a badge of honor for
> our heads of transportation agencies to be hired with no transit experience
> or knowledge what-so-ever.
>
I'm proposing be replaced by Cabintaxi. That ship has sailed, an
expensive tunnel and short track will cripple the world-class BRT
system. The current BRT system is choked by a short section in the
city which isn't segregated and a tunnel WOULD have fixed that nicely
and for a reasonable amount. Urbanaut would have added automation and
electric propulsion to the mix, but it is unavailable.
There are other smaller projects that I think would work nicely as
PRT.
> All considered, I would think that you have little chance of changing the
> direction of Ottawa because their plan is significantly better than in
> Detroit,(not necessarily saying much) and there is little chance of changing
> the project in Detroit, because the leaders here do not care about the
>
> That said, I still like your idea to give people interested something else
> to consider, so here are some more responses to your questions:
>
> I think it's important to keep the over and under capability even if it's
> just for future expansion. Otherwise, there is no advantage over Vectus,
> other than being Detroit based and there is no room for growth as the system
> expands to 15 mile road and beyond.
>
> Again, Cabintaxi is designed to be an urban system. While we have long
> commutes all over the country, the desirable travel time is generally 30
>
> The issues between what size the vehicles should be, is very interesting. A
> strong case can be made that no small PRT network is worth the investment
> other then as a demonstration, and the low capacity that it demonstrates in
> this reduced setting can work against the chance of achieving the eventual
> larger system. A PRT shuttle that has difficulty performing that task, or
> is perceived to have problems with capacity, can make it very difficult to
> justify the larger investment in something that seems not really a
> significant transit investment to begin with. Inherently, a PRT shuttle can
>
> So, how do you get to a full small vehicle origin to destination system?
>
> Considering using small vehicle systems for large government projects like
> unfortunately, no way to get to a PRT system as a first phase. If that is
> proposed, it will not be accepted. PRT needs a sizable network to show that
> it can move enough people to make any transit activity worthwhile. No one
> will want to take the leap of faith and put in a large network to start. If
> a small demonstration is proposed, then no one will think it is worth doing
> because it moves so few people.
>
> All of the discussion about changing the Morgantown system to PRT, always
> faltered on the system's present carrying capacity. There were suggestions
> that if more of a network was added, then PRT might be able to be applied.
> In other words, yes the Morgantown GRT works fine, but we could make it PRT
> if we just spend more money and put in more guideway and more vehicles, and
>
> I have shown these before, and they are on Jerry's site, but they are worth
> considering. The first one is a small vehicle GRT over the same area as the
> second, which is PRT. If you look at the routing for the different lines
> of passengers. PRT cannot start effectively like that. At the same time,
> small vehicle GRT can run in a PRT fashion with the flip of a switch, as
> Morgantown can today. PRT really requires a significant network to be a
> reasonable public investment. If PRT is all a system can do it is a major
> leap of faith no one has been willing to do for good reason. Even in this
> Hamburg setting, while the study showed higher ridership with small vehicle
> PRT in the large network once established, the Hamburg Hochbahn opted to get
> there by installing small vehicle GRT first in routes similar to those shown
> below. Again, if the system is so designed, the 12 passenger small vehicle
> developed in cooperation with a community, without the inherent risks of
need clear sidings where PRT would have waiting podcars. This means
no (or at least crippled) PRT during GRT operation. Putting GRT on
it's own guideway solves this problem.
>
> Your numerous questions about using the different levels for different
> vehicle sizes only seem to miss the point about why over-and-under is as
> advantageous as it is. You go back to from where you came as quickly as you
> came, and the networks costs are lower. If you relegate a given operating
> style to one level, than you have effectively created the inherent
> disadvantages of single level PRT, the need to loop back more frequently
> reverse the flow of vehicles in a smaller turn radius, while an interesting
> thought, ignores the cost of development and testing required to inject this
> theory into a real system. The turntable would need to have a sub-three
> second headway capability carrying real people and travel at a speed as fast
> as the flow of traffic or dramatically restrict the flow of the guideway, in
> effect a centrifuge, or in station areas suffer more unclear issues. Your
> opposition would rightly rip this idea to shreds and use it to discredit the
> entire plan.
turntable can take 2 vehicles, so that increases it's throughput and
not ALL traffic would use it, just EMPTY vehicles that need to be
short-run.
>
> The Cabintaxi system works as designed. It can be laid out more effectively
> in most cases than light rail. It can be started small with little to no
> development risk and evolve to a full PRT system if desired.
>
> I hope this explains my reasoning a bit more.
F.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marsden-----Original Message-----
> 361KViewDownload
>
> image003.gif
> 390KViewDownload
Marsden Burger
GRT and PRT cannot run properly at the same time. GRT vehicles would
need clear sidings where PRT would have waiting podcars. This means
no (or at least crippled) PRT during GRT operation. Putting GRT on
it's own guideway solves this problem.
F.Even in the simplest of stations, the interaction of PRT and GRT is no more difficult than waiting on an A-train in normal transit when a B-train is there first. Vehicles are always moving out of stations when other vehicles come in. The only time vehicles stand in stations is when no demand is there, and no vehicles are entering stations - off peaks. Otherwise, the movement of vehicles is dynamic in peak periods. Empty vehicles move through the system looking for empty stations to park in or to be in areas where the system history and incoming requests indicates vehicles are needed in given areas and times. When vehicle requests indicate a need for a vehicle, it is pulled from the guideway flow, the nearest platform, or a vehicle storage facility. Vehicles are called to the station when a passenger enters the station and identifies that entry to the system. Either level can work with both GRT and PRT with no system degradation if the network and station layouts are planned for them.
This is not the case for Cabintaxi systems. There are many station design possibilities.
Small vehicle GRT only enters a station when an onboard passenger has selected that station as his destination, or if a passenger in the station has requested a GRT authorized to use that station otherwise the GRT vehicle proceeds to the next station in its route that has the conditions needed for it to stop - a passenger request for a route station. No real difference than PRT, just more capacity with fewer vehicles and shared rides - allowing smaller networks to get started responsibly.
Again, there are many station and network design possibilities.
Remember, this may be a problem for Pod Cars, but they are a recent idea, and appear limited in their ability. :)
Best wishes,
Marsden
Benke
would need separate guideway sidings. My vision is to run GRT between
highly used stations only. If you want to go from a GRT-enabled
station to a non-GRT station or vice versa you would change to/from a
PRT vehicle as needed. Ideally the GRT and PRT sidings should be on
opposite sides of the same platform, so you can just step right over
and enter the other type of vehicle. Of course it would be allowed to
go PRT all the way too, but that would have a higher cost, I imagine.
In lower use hours both sidings could be used for PRT, increasing the
PRT capacity of the station.
In Morgantown the GRT mode is still point-to-point, it is not line-
haul. I would like to ponder how to implement the GRT mode in a larger
network, for instance 100 stations out of which 20 have the special
GRT sidings. Could this be serviced by alot of point to point GRT
vehicles or would it be more realistic to use a line-haul mode? How
would in that case the lines be layed out on the network? Could there
be demand driven changes to the "GRT lines" in real time? This seems
to be a formidable optimization problem, it is really hard to see how
to tackle it! Any ideas?
Bengt
Ian Ford
to be in bus mode. The car goes from one end of the line to the other
and back like a bus and stops only when needed to pick up or drop off.
Unlike a bus, it can skip the end stations if there is no demand, and
stay more often in the center of the line. For a diagonal trip, you have
to transfer. The transfer penalty is quite low since the cars would
presumably come every minute or so.
On 2010-11-02 7:01, Benke wrote:
> I would like to ponder how to implement the GRT mode in a larger
> network, for instance 100 stations out of which 20 have the special
> GRT sidings. Could this be serviced by alot of point to point GRT
> vehicles or would it be more realistic to use a line-haul mode? How
> would in that case the lines be layed out on the network? Could there
> be demand driven changes to the "GRT lines" in real time? This seems
> to be a formidable optimization problem, it is really hard to see how
> to tackle it! Any ideas?
--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.750.IAN8
eph
needed at peak times, why not just run some buses and maximize profit
on the PRT guideways by providing excellent service at premium prices
when demand is highest?
At off-peak times, bus pass holders can use the PRT cars which means
empty buses aren't running all night, and drivers aren't paid to
chauffeur a few passengers around. Plus service is excellent, not
every half hour or less.
This means there is no need to worry about the PRT/GRT mix, pure PRT
can run all the time.
The big question (for me) is does it make economic sense? How much is
congestion-free, comfortable travel worth? How much can be saved in
bus O&M at off-peak hours? Will this actually take drivers off the
road freeing up space for buses and other traffic? What is this extra
capacity worth in road maintenance, expansion etc...? Is the emission-
free aspect worth something? Other benefits?
F.
Kirston Henderson
>From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
>To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
>
> I was thinking about this also. If GRT is like a bus and it's only
> needed at peak times, why not just run some buses and maximize profit
> on the PRT guideways by providing excellent service at premium prices
> when demand is highest?
>
> At off-peak times, bus pass holders can use the PRT cars which means
> empty buses aren't running all night, and drivers aren't paid to
> chauffeur a few passengers around. Plus service is excellent, not
> every half hour or less.
>
> This means there is no need to worry about the PRT/GRT mix, pure PRT
> can run all the time.
>
> The big question (for me) is does it make economic sense? How much is
> congestion-free, comfortable travel worth? How much can be saved in
> bus O&M at off-peak hours? Will this actually take drivers off the
> road freeing up space for buses and other traffic? What is this extra
> capacity worth in road maintenance, expansion etc...? Is the emission-
> free aspect worth something? Other benefits?
>
As far as I am concerned, the idea makes perfect sense as long as all of
the stations are off-line and that the access doors for PRT and GRT are the
same size and compatible.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
Marsden Burger
Gentlemen,
Since there seems interest in this topic, I will again post the post from 2008. Note the operational numbers at the end on the differences between PRT and GRT for the same area.
To sum them up quickly, small vehicle GRT get over 80% of the ridership of PRT, GRT costs 50% of the capital cost of PRT, and GRT cost 35% of the operating costs of PRT. Further, GRT can provide PRT service in the off peak, if so planned, with out a major increase in the comparative operating costs. The cost of running 12-passenger small vehicle GRT as PRT is close to the cost of running 3-passenger small vehicle PRT as “cruse” energy requirements are dependent on frontal air resistance, which “while boxy” are the same, and low at low speeds.
This information is background for your thinking. Most of this has been thought through in detail for the Cabintaxi application in Hamburg, and the Hochbahn came up with the scenario that it liked to start their planned system.
The characteristics of any given system will affect the operational scenarios, and not having an in-depth understanding of the system considered, leads to incompatible scenarios.
The 2008 post:
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 from 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
Back to 2010: All of the advantages of Cabintaxi small vehicle GRT capital and operating costs, are more pronounced when compared to a single level PRT.
--
WALTER BREWER
----- Original Message -----From: Marsden Burger
eph
If GRT get .50 cents/fare (like the people mover) and PRT gets $5.00
or more like a taxi, PRT may be a better investment.
Also, GRT, like LRT will take people out of buses, but PRT might take
people out of cars.
F.
>
> 422KViewDownload
>
> image001.jpg
> 569KViewDownload
Gary Penn
Gentlemen,
Since there seems interest in this topic, I will again post the post from 2008. Note the operational numbers at the end on the differences between PRT and GRT for the same area.
To sum them up quickly, small vehicle GRT get over 80% of the ridership of PRT, GRT costs 50% of the capital cost of PRT, and GRT cost 35% of the operating costs of PRT. Further, GRT can provide PRT service in the off peak, if so planned, with out a major increase in the comparative operating costs. The cost of running 12-passenger small vehicle GRT as PRT is close to the cost of running 3-passenger small vehicle PRT as “cruse” energy requirements are dependent on frontal air resistance, which “while boxy” are the same, and low at low speeds.
This information is background for your thinking. Most of this has been thought through in detail for the Cabintaxi application in Hamburg, and the Hochbahn came up with the scenario that it liked to start their planned system.
The characteristics of any given system will affect the operational scenarios, and not having an in-depth understanding of the system considered, leads to incompatible scenarios.
The 2008 post:
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 from 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:
<image001.jpg>
Here is a GRT layout over the same area:
<image002.jpg>
Jerry Schneider
I think it may make the most sense for a system that is essentially a
shuttle back and forth. Maybe also
for a relatively simple network. If the network is extensive, then
the problem of grouping people,
optimally, by destination becomes much more difficult. (i.e. quality
of service would decline) But, suboptimal
solutions might well be acceptable in terms of increased waiting,
stopping and maybe transfer times.
It would depend on the how large the increased times were and whether
they were judged to be
acceptable by the client and eventually the patrons. The tradeoff
would be lower capital cost to the owner and
a reduction in perceptions about the infernal capacity problem.
WALTER BREWER
Marsden Burger
I can not tell you the ROI, but in this study over 80% of the people that
would use PRT would also use GRT, so if PRT gets people out of cars, I would
guess that so is GRT. Remember, it is the convenience, in ease of use,
travel time, and fare, that gets people to change modes.
Best wishes,
Marsden
Best wishes
Brad Templeton
popular mode of transportation. In spite of being done by hand
(generally no software involved) they have reached high levels of
success. Of course, that in part is because Taxis are expensive, and
something that cuts the cost of a taxi by 50 to 60% is worth some
waiting and redirecting to a lower income population. In spite of
not being low income, I have also quite enjoyed rides on Jitneys and
Sherut, they are often interesting for tourists due to their live-
local nature.
We've always imagined, though, with everybody carrying smart phones
that it should be possible for people to declare planned trips and do
efficient pooling. Being able to declare before leaving where you are
can make a big difference, as well as being told "leave now to meet
your Jitney"
> --
> 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.
Ian Ford
you change a couple variables to represent a GRT model (transfer time
and travel speed), then it drops the mode share to 24%.
The two main things that will be affected by the technology are the wait
time (which is higher for GRT because of transfers) and the line speed
(lower for GRT because there are intermediate stops). Adding an average
of one minute to wait times and decreasing average speed from 30 to 20
mph makes a large difference in ridership, and ROI.
If you reduce the GRT fare to zero, GRT will also get the 39% ridership.
Results of 1-minute modeling like this are useful to understand the
relations and magnitudes between factors, but are not predictive.
* Use this model (http://abqtransp.org/app) and enter these variables
detail to model the PRT network assumed for this comparison:
TravelTimeCost=4,7,10,13
WaitTimeCost=6,10,15,21
TransitAversionFactor=0,0.33,0.66
WalkAversionFactor=0,0.3,0.5,1,2
CommuteDistance=1,2,3,4,5,7,10,15
TransitWaitMins=0,1
OriginWalk=0.125,0.25,0.5
DestWalk=0.125,0.25,0.5
TransitSpeed=30
TransitFareCost=1
LowParkingCost=0
HighParkingCost=3
ParkingThreshholdMiles=0.1251
DrivingCostPerMile=0.35
DrivingSpeed=20
Changes to model GRT:
TransitWaitMins=1,2
TransitSpeed=20
Jack Slade
Marsden, I have never seen Cabintaxi's price quoted in figures that I can put into a cost-per-mile figure. This makes it difficult to even discuss your statement.
Can you give me a quote that compares with the $13 Million per mile given by Unimodal at the Minnesota Workshop meeting? I asked if this figure included everything....guideways, stations, vehicles...and the answer was " Yes, it is all-inclusive".
This figure also is very close to estimates I have from Kirston, as well as my own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eph
public transit. That's 3 trips per person.
Capital cost 6% interest over 30 years is: $55,282,200 per year for
PRT, half that for GRT (say).
406,000 trips/day is 406,000*365 =
148,190,000 trips/year (that's 50% more trips than Ottawa with a
population at least 8x larger)
Operating expense: $39,400,000 for PRT, $13,770,000 for GRT.
Total expense per year:
$94,682,200 for PRT
$41,411,100 for GRT
PRT fares must be 2.29 times larger for PRT to cover expenses assuming
the same number of patrons.
Cost per fare:
GRT: 0.28 DM (45 cents in 2009 USD*)
PRT: 0.64 DM (103 cents in 2009 USD*)
* - I'm guessing a 1979 DM (1.8340 to the USD) was worth $1.61 using
the Consumer Price Index and exchange values in today's dollars. Used
this site: http://www.measuringworth.com
The tricky part is still: What are people willing to pay for a PRT
trip? Taxi fare prices or public transit prices?
F.
Ian Ford
"people" are willing to pay. If you set the fare at $1, a lot more
people will ride than if you set the fare at $3. You can play with the
effect of fares in the model (abqtransp.org/app).
On 2010-11-02 14:49, eph wrote:
> The tricky part is still: What are people willing to pay for a PRT
> trip? Taxi fare prices or public transit prices?
>
--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.750.IAN8
WALTER BREWER
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Ford" <i...@ianford.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional
Guideway
eph
of PRT vs GRT? Initial results (without this factor) favour PRT based
on a 50 cent fare increase over the $1.03 expense (including capital)
of PRT compared to $0.45 of GRT.
PRT cost: $1.58
Transit share: 20.3% trips, 31.6% miles
Driving: 797135 trips, 4018142 miles
Transit: 202865 trips, 1856858 miles
Time: driving=11.7 min, transit=27.5 min (233.7% of driving)
GRT cost: $0.95
Transit share: 14.9% trips, 21.0% miles
Driving: 850955 trips, 4638802 miles
Transit: 149045 trips, 1236198 miles
Time: driving=11.7 min, transit=34.3 min (292.2% of driving)
Using the Detroit $1.50 fare:
PRT
Transit share: 20.8% trips, 32.1% miles
Driving: 791840 trips, 3989410 miles
Transit: 208160 trips, 1885590 miles
Time: driving=11.7 min, transit=27.5 min (233.7% of driving)
GRT:
Transit share: 9.5% trips, 15.4% miles
Driving: 904687 trips, 4969358 miles
Transit: 95313 trips, 905642 miles
Time: driving=11.7 min, transit=34.3 min (292.2% of driving)
How do I compare now?
Capital expense per day for 406,000 trips:
55,282,200 DM/year = 151458 DM/day or 151458.082 * 1.61 = $243,847
2009 USD/day for PRT.
1/2 for GRT is $121,924/day
Operating expense per day:
39,400,000 DM/year for PRT, $173,792/day for 406,000 trips.
13,770,000 DM/year for GRT, $60,739/day for 406,000 trips
Inflate trips to match 406,000 so 460,000/208,160 = 2.21 factor
profit: 208,160 trips * 2.21 * .47 profit/trip = $190,820 for PRT
(approx.)
(Other method)for PRT:
$609,000 gross revenue
Capital expense:
609,000 - $243,847 = 365,153
operating expense:
365,153-173,792 = $191,361
For GRT:
95,313 * 2.21 * 1.50 = $315,963 gross revenue.
Capital expense:
$315,963 - $121,924 = $194,039
operating expense:
95,313 * 2.21 * 60,739/406,000 = $31,513
$194,039 - 31,513 = $162,526
~ $30,000 more profit/day for PRT (~19% more).
Thanks Ian,
F.
Marsden Burger
Gary,
I am not able to answer your questions exactly. The study referred to was not done by our team, but an outside group under a federal contract reviewing all of the urban systems under development by the German government at that time. Our team was unhappy about numerous inaccuracies in this study as it related to the technology itself and indeed some of their station concepts. However, the overall study results for its purpose requested by the government were acceptable to our team. There were so few documents in English, and I knew that as a basic planning study it would be useful for the English-speaking world to look at. While I had the special copies at that time, the English translation is not good.
I was not part of the detailed planning for the Hamburg project, and operating scenarios can easily vary.
See discussions below.
Best wishes,
Marsden
PS I think some one asked:
The average wait time for the GRT system was Peak Period .78 minutes, Max wait for 95% of riders 2.27 min Max wait for 98% 2.9 Longest wait 8.0
Off-Peak .99 2.97 3.97 10.0
Night Owl 2.19 6.11 7.42 11.0
The average wait time for the PRT system was Peak Period .70 Max wait time for 90% of riders 2.20
Off-Peak .12 .94
Night Owl .01 .90
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gary Penn
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010
1:35 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre
Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
Your figures on cost of GRT vs PRT, while they are within the context of the Cabintaxi design, seem like a persuasive argument for at least starting with GRT. However, something I have never seen much of an exposition on is how passengers get allocated to vehicles or how vehicle routes are determined for the package of desire destinations the embarked passengers have requested. That is do passengers have to determine which vehicles are going to where they want to go and board those or does a given vehicle's computer or the central system develop a route to efficiently distribute a given load of passengers to their designed destinations?
[Marsden Burger]
Remember again, this scenario was how it was planned in the 70’s. Many things could be done different today.
As the user comes into the system, he identifies his destination station. The system give him a ticket and directs him to a boarding station. That station can be on either level, depending on how the central computer sees the most effective route for this passenger to travel at that time. In a GRT route, the passenger is assigned a line number and he proceeds to the boarding platform. The Central computer is monitoring all vehicles in the system, and redirects them as the need arises. It senses the request, and directs the most available vehicle with that line number to respond to that station platform. Depending on variations, it could be utilizing assigned vehicles, or if a close vehicle is traveling empty, it could reassign that vehicle to the requested line – such decisions would be system specific. When the vehicle reaches the platform and it is showing it route number (possible in many ways) the passenger programs his destination to the vehicle using his ticket, and the door opens for him to embark. If there are other passengers going to the same station right behind him (or different stations on the same line), they program the vehicle with their tickets and load the vehicle until full or no more passengers want to travel on this line. If full the vehicle then leaves the station and travels non-stop to the first station on the route where an embarked passenger wants to get off. If not full, the vehicle travels to the next location where a passenger would like to embark, or debark, this particular line.
If the 6 people arrive as indicated below, then yes, the system could send them to either level to await a given line going more effectively to their requested destination. If a transfer is require, the system will indicate to use the given level platform to engage line 7, travel to station # X to transfer to line 3 lower level and proceed to station Y, your destination, with the ticket used to program the destinations in both vehicles – cancelling the leg each time. There is continual interaction between the three levels of operational computers, station, vehicle, and central. As the system is a smart vehicle system, should the central control go down, all vehicles in the system will complete their trips to debark their passengers at their requested stations then return to the storage facilities.
We have some boxes of software, but have never expected to use it as anything other than a reference – if that.
If six passengers are waiting at a station or arrive with a minute of a GRT vehicle's arrival and want to go to six different destinations among the 54 available in the example given do they are simply board the same vehicle after inputting their destinations and payment data (in any of a variety of possible ways) or do some of them get directed to one vehicle (going South for example) and others to another (going North, for example)? Given that there are 7 routes shown, some nested within others it would not seem possible to just ride the vehicle until it gets to your station. The software to plan the vehicles route seem like the hard part. Does it exist today as part of the Cabintaxi package? I would appreciate your insight on this difficult problem.
[Marsden Burger]
Our plans have always been to start systems small with simple shuttles and small loops. In the redevelopment of the basic components for these small systems, we can recreate the entire system with updated technology. Within our support group we have a system control expert who originally worked within the Cabintaxi team, and has since developed similar, yet far more effective and less expensive software which he has applied on small systems of many types throughout the world.
At the same time, while I recognize that you are referring to the software to plan the vehicle routes being the hard part. None of this software today is hard. Diverting a bit to stress a point. The hard part of any transit system is getting control of the vehicle guideway interface to such a degree that you can control the system in winter conditions. This aspect is “hard!” It must be doen one-to-one and tested. Not only hard but very costly. This is even more true in small vehicle short headway systems. Our team, and many others in this field, believes that it is only really possible with linear powered systems – and still it is hard and costly. If you cannot supply short headway operations, then these types of operations are not going to be there in a city like Hamburg.
There are many firms that can supply the software.
Frank Lee Mideer
The idea is for a split station with exit on one side of an intersection and
entry on the other so that the traffic lights can be used for pedestrian
crossing/access to the station. Podcars must traverse the intersection, but
they will do so empty. Other direction is at the next intersection. Doesn't
work well with over and under guideway.
No elevators and no elevated stations are needed. A large row of podcars can be
stored (though there may be security issues).
This design can be used to combine DM and PRT.
F.
Ian Ford
"0,0.33,0.66" (times $/hr of travel time), which would be suitable for
GRT. That says 1/3rd of the people find transit equally bad as driving,
1/3rd find it 33% worse, and 1/3rd find it 66% worse. You can change the
value to simply "0" for PRT.
eph
If I find some market share stats for taxi use to compare results?
0 transit aversion gives me an extra 10% market share or an extra 50
cents/trip. Reducing driving speed to 20 mph (congestion) brings in
an extra 75 cents (to $2.75) and keeps the %20 market share. Removing
the 15 mile distance brings market share down considerably - I'm
starting to see how it works.
It's an interesting model and a very neat web interface.
Thanks,
F.
Marsden Burger
F.
Marsden Burger
Jack,
For the last many years, we have worked on small private sector projects. In those efforts, PRT or GRT costs for network systems have not been of interest to us. We have not tried to work up such costs for today. What we know is that all PRT costs are going to be far higher than what those who support the effort want to hear.
Again, it is only when systems start to become real, that the cost estimates start to become real. If you want to believe the costs of any given system concept we can only wish you well.
Cabintaxi PRT systems costs are not going to be very different from any other three-passenger beam system. The ratio as they relate to PRT vs. GRT will still be the same. The advantage of over and under will still be the same. If you truly believe, you have the cost of a similar system, then use those cost to compare Cabintaxi. I would suggest that the system have successfully completed fleet testing on elevated structures before you accept those costs.
Our approach now is to build simple systems in the private sector that we own and operate. What our costs are going to be we have a good feel for, but they are our costs within our efforts. Our goal now is to make a fair return on our efforts so that we can create a healthy company. This we believe is the best way to get past the barriers to entry established by the present governmental process - successful projects that create value, and lead to believers. Discussions of system costs only create defensive positions, or claims that others can do it cheaper. It serves no positive value. The experience that I have says that cost estimates are usually done to attract investment for development, and low costs estimates have been historically very good at obtaining such funding.
The ratios are real, and the costs related in the Cabintaxi vs. Light Rail are real costs based on Hamburg at the time. I do not believe that scaling these costs provide realistic numbers as many of the cost elements have gone down significantly, while few have risen faster than the inflation rate. Still we do not have today’s costs for networks systems, and would not provide them if we did.
We are looking for partners to carry out our business plan, and believe doing projects profitably in the private sector is the best path to make this market come into existence.
Best wishes,
Marsden
Jack Slade
Are you sure about this, because it is a total contradiction of Ed Anderson's explanation of what Raytheon did to his design. I will quote him as closely as I can remember: " They made the vehicle 4 times as heavy, and the guideway twice as wide and twice as deep and 3 times more expensive".
Was he wrong?
Jack Slade
> Here
> is a GRT layout
> over the same area:
>
>
>
>
>
WALTER BREWER
Marsden Burger
The study results that I have referenced, deal only with the variations within the Cabintaxi system: Cabintaxi small vehicle PRT and Cabintaxi small vehicle GRT.
Because of the safety standard applied to a Cabintaxi network in which sub-three-second separations are planned, the guideway for separate systems of: 1. Cabintaxi small vehicle GRT; and 2. Cabintaxi small vehicle PRT; will be the same cost per foot. As long as the vehicle cross section remains that of a three passenger bench seat with seated passengers, the guideway loading with everything figured in make it not advantageous to create a different guideway for these two different vehicle styles.
If we create a different style of vehicle, like the standing passenger Cabinlift vehicle, then the guideway weight changes, even-though the hardware uses the same system design and in many cases the same components. In that case, Cabinlift GRT, the cost of the system goes up on a per foot basis. However, and this is important, the cost of a given application of standing passenger GRT might not go up over a small vehicle PRT over the same area, because the GRT may not need the same amount of guideway (as dense a network) as PRT, because of the differences in operating styles. Again, most discussion of turning Morgantown from the most effective transit system in the United States into a true PRT system, seem to always include adding significant amounts of new guideway to make a system that is working well, work; "how much better"?
Based on the study referenced, the cost of Cabintaxi small vehicle GRT was 50% less than the cost of Cabintaxi small vehicle PRT over the same area, and achieved 80% of the ridership. That study recommended for PRT. While GRT and PRT can be combine over the same guideway, this study chose not to go that route because of the increased modeling complexity, and developed two different networks, the first for a PRT system the second for a GRT system.
Within the German Cabintaxi development team early on there was a engineering Ph.D. that wanted Cabintaxi to be floated on permanent magnets. In the tradeoff analysis work, the team decided against this and went with the wheel approach. This gentleman was very upset because he was sure that he could float a vehicle on permanent magnets. He withdrew from the Cabintaxi effort and went out to prove that this was an important point. He obtained government funding that led to the development of the M-bahn maglev system. When the M-bahn was at, lets say 3/4 development point, it had been clearly established that he was correct: it was possible to suspend a vehicle on permanent magnets, requiring no other energy to float. At this point the gentleman left the M-bahn program that latter collapsed. It was generally held that he only wanted to prove his theory, and the application of the technology to transit was not what had been driving him.
The goal in my perspective is the improvement of mobility within our urban areas, not to prove theories. That is why I am saying that we are not wed to the Cabintaxi technology. We went after the technoloogy because we recognized that it was the most advanced urban system ever developed. While I am sure most of you do not know it, among others within our group at the time we decided to obtain the technology, was Jack Irving. Jack served on the board of Cabintaxi and was Vice Chairman for about fifteen years. All of us lost a very dynamic good man with his recent passing. Our goal of finding a way through the barriers to entry created by the government process, to improve our cities, has never changed.
The M-bahn system was carrying passengers on its first full system/test and demonstration in Berlin, when it was established that while the system functioned, the level of development reached by the system did not bring enough improvement over conventional systems to make it worth while continuing. There were changes that could have been done, however, it meant a reworking of the basic "vehicle guideway interface," the cost of which was in effect equivalent to starting over the entire program from scratch. The system was canceled. When is a development effort a concept and when is it a system?
Ed has a concept that he can make a guideway less expensive than other efforts for small beam guideways, I wish him well. Raytheon, for many reasons far more corporately involved than simple engineering, decided to change from Ed's concept to their concept. Both of these effort remain concepts for small vehicle systems with short headways. I would suggest that the time to consider "system" costs is when the concept for small vehicles has successfully gone through fleet endurance testing - three vehicles are not a fleet. If San Jose's program is successful, do not be surprised if the same standards for small vehicle network guideway safety are applied to that development as were found necessary and applied for the Cabintaxi development. My interest is in safe public transit standards, and I have no issue with the standards applied.
"The reasonable man sees the world as it is and tries to adapt his activity to fit. The unreasonable man sees the world in his own way, and tries to force the world to become what he sees. Therefore, all advancement must come from unreasonable men." (with apologies to G.B.Shaw)
What level of effort is needed for a concept to become a system? Without concepts we will never find a better world.
Best wishes,
Marsden
PS - We are looking for partners interested in making a profit in the private sector.
> Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 23:52:34 -0700
> From: skytr...@rogers.com
> Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>
Marsden Burger
Sorry, I am unable to find the number of transfers directly given in the study write up. It mentions the wait time for transferees, but not the actual number that transfer. I states its criteria for transfer, but again, not the number of those that actually do transfer.
Best wishes,
Marsden
From: catc...@verizon.net
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
Jack Slade
I understand, at least....sort of. This study was obviously not done by the same people who built the VW or the ME109. I suggest you scrap the study, and do one of your own.
When talk is of fixing Morgantown to be true PRT they certainly do not mean beefing up the guideway, as it was already made to carry the weight of a train. I have heard some suggestions to just lay down PRT guideways on top of the existing ones, to save on extra construction.
I personally don't advocate this, as the erection of small PRT guideway should be the simplest thing on Earth, and I think it would actually be more expensive to add it to the existing one.
|
Marsden Burger
I think some of the biggest problems with the study are in the translation. One of these days I will dig out the German version and read it more carefully.
Best wishes,
Marsden
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:50:18 -0700
eph
corridor (11,100 daily) and wonder if at-grade stations like this one
is all that can be afforded? Could a Cabintaxi guideway be buried
across an intersection allowing cars to drive over it?
F.
Dan Homerick
eph
think there is also an access restriction to placing a station in the
middle of the block - if you are one (or more) street over, it extends
your walk by half a block (not a very strong argument for not doing it
though). It also takes up most of the block. On the other hand,
there is the delays that can be incurred for mixing with traffic and
potential for accidents. Mid-block might be a better location.
Traffic lights could be co-ordinated so that traffic isn't slowed much
since only one side needs to match the traffic light. Only the half-
way point must be reached. It also means that the under guideway
COULD be mixed with the over one but this would require a system
upgrade. Technically it should be possible.
The whole thread is based on replacing an LRT line which not only
places its stations at intersections, but also carves a 3 lane wide
divide for the rest of the street! I guess it depends on where your
focus is. For LRT, making car travel less appealing (by removing
lanes and parking spaces) is part of the magic.
I'm still not crazy about decelerating on a downhill nor about the
space it takes out of the street, though again, compared to the cost
of an elevated station or LRT...
F.
>
> > This is a CONCEPT ( so don't freak out :-) ).
>
> > The idea is for a split station with exit on one side of an intersection
> > and
> > entry on the other so that the traffic lights can be used for pedestrian
> > crossing/access to the station. Podcars must traverse the intersection,
> > but
> > they will do so empty. Other direction is at the next intersection.
> > Doesn't
> > work well with over and under guideway.
>
> > No elevators and no elevated stations are needed. A large row of podcars
> > can be
> > stored (though there may be security issues).
>
> > This design can be used to combine DM and PRT.
>
> > F.
>
> > --
> > 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
> > .
Michael Weidler
| Well, if Marsden is correct, systems will need to start out as GRT until the network gets big enough. So just run the GRT cars as PRT when the network gets big enough and slowly take them out of service as rolling stock is replaced. --- On Tue, 11/2/10, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Jack Slade
I am not sure if Marsden is correct. Enlarging everything that was proposed to a concept that was priced at $80 Million per mile is what killed the Raytheon Project. Won't it do the same to any system that proposes to run individual vehicles on over-sized guideways?
I am still trying to visualize his statement about PRT vehicles seating people 3-abreast. I hope this was a misprint. If it wasn't, I can see how he anticipates a stability problem. I just can't get the picture of a vehicle that is 6 feet long and 10 feet wide, and the aerodynamics are terrible.
|
|
Marsden Burger
Jack,
Short of asking for a consulting fee for the information I am providing here J, let me just lay out some more images and let you think about it some more. (Borrowed from the Booz Allen analysis)
Some thoughts as you look at these images.
My shoulder width is 22 inches, and I am 5’10” 180lbs. The “outside” dimension of the first vehicle is 62 in.
I tried to maintain the scaling from Booz Allen, for the first two images.
The Cabintaxi vehicle that you are looking at it a 12 passenger small vehicle GRT.
The height of the Cabintaxi vehicle is 167 cm (why it as shown below with a slight variation I am not sure. The Hamburg drawings have them the same at 167.)
The carrying box beam girder of the Cabintaxi system is approximately 45 cm wide. For the single level, the beam height is approximately 90 cm.
You can make up your own minds in the advantages and disadvantages of the inside running beam approach to the outside running beam approach, again, that is not really the issue that I am addressing.
There is more guideway cost issues between systems than there is between small vehicle GRT and small vehicle PRT. It is just that no one has small vehicle GRT but Cabintaxi.
Also, think a bit. Is it not interesting that the newly announced Daventry conference, following on English PRT experimentation, is now addressing PRT/GRT applications, where before, Daventry was only talking PRT. What do you think the “English PRT experimentations” might be showing.
Best wishes,
Marsden
We are looking for partners!
|
|
Kirston Henderson
Well, if Marsden is correct, systems will need to start out as GRT until the network gets big enough. So just run the GRT cars as PRT when the network gets big enough and slowly take them out of service as rolling stock is replaced.
It's about the only to ever get there.
Kirston Henderson
Marsden Burger
Gentlemen,
Again borrowing from the same Booz Allen report; when I found the previous images, I came across this proposed example of a theoretical network supporting a line haul transit system and thought that it is another good network to compare bi-directional PRT/GRT with one way PRT. Why a single level system is selected to demonstrate PRT I will leave for you to guess.
However, after the discussions in regards to “High PRT”, I would bet that most of you can draw the routing of a bi-directional over and under system that will provide more effective service at probably 25% less capital cost than the network proposed here.
Best wishes,
Marsden
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Slade
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010
2:27 AM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
|
|
Jack Slade
OK, I will try to give a serious answer, instead of just joking around. I will start first with my personal preference, the list of reasons why I think public transit is only getting minimum ridership.
1. I don't like travelling with groups of people I don't know, and often don't like. If I have to do this my use of the system does not reduce by 75%, it reduces to ZERO.
2. I don't like waiting in the cold, rain, and snow even for a few minuites...same ridership of zero
3. I don't like slow speeds, and if each vehicle makes many stops that is all you can get..slow.
4. I don't like transfers, and as system cost per mile goes up, the system mileage goes down, which means greater walking distances , and more transfers to get to destination.
There were other dislikes, but all less important than these.
If you start with an expensive guideway, it is still expensive when you try to convert to PRT, and this has to be reflected in farebox prices. Current fare in Toronto is $2.85, which is great if you are going 10 miles, but terrible if you want to go just 1 mile. Compare this to a farebox price of
15 cents/mile, lets say with a 25 cent minimum fare.
At this price I can go 10 miles for $ 1.50, or go to lunch and back for 50 cents. Is anybody sure that I won't get at least double the ridership, not just 25% more?
I don't have a price/mile cost for Cabintaxi guideway, but I know that a 12-passenger vehicle has to weigh at least twice the weight of a 4-passenger, so the guideway has to cost at least twice as much. Compare the excavation problem alone for the Cabintaxi design, which is not needed for Skytrax, TriTrac, Unimodal ( SkyTran), Megaway( hope I got that right) and the cost has to go up even more.
I could go on with this for a few pages, but don't want to. I just tkink you have to start with the cheapest guideway possible, build many more miles than you otherwise would, not bother with 2-way service on any street, and go network rather than line-haul.
I also want to add that, when I first saw Morgantown, the vehicles are rather odd-looking. I think we are used to cars that are wider than they are high, and I think we should try to give people what they are used to. Higher than width looks top-heavy.
Re: Your question about the one-day Daventry Convention. I think it is probably because the stodgy, opinionated prople who don't understand PRT are going on with the same arguments that were used at Morgantown to convert too a GRT system, and we have been having the same on this list for 15 years. The " Bigger is Better Crowd" just wont give up.
I may tell them this, if I bother to tell them about what I think about one-day conventions.
Jack Slade |
|
--- On Sat, 11/6/10, Marsden Burger <Cabint...@msn.com> wrote:
|
Richard Gronning
On 11/6/2010 6:54 PM, Jack Slade wrote:
More to the point, if ridership can be increased, why should there be just one fee? Don't we live in the computer age? Can't a fare collecting system figure out an equatable fare? It could be according to time and energy used. In fact, a rider could probably pull up his/her trip on his/her iphone or computer and get exactly what he/she used in energy and time, and what it would have been with any other system; actual figures for car, SUV, bus, and LRT. (Pickup?)
Wouldn't it be some sort of a geometric increase in price? If vehicles increase in weight and size, they need bigger motors, brakes, more power, and not only a heavier guideway, but bigger footings, more space... What have I left out?
Are system plans for maximizing loads in order to put bigger numbers on charts, or plans for making better, more comfortable and convenient transit in order to attract more riders?� Jack already mentioned a cheaper system.
With all due respect, I get the same feeling from ULTra and 2Getthere's vehicles. I don't dislike them, they just seem strange to me, as high as they are. Vectus is 6 passenger...(???)... and they also are talking about GRT vehicles. I think that they already have a strong enough track for it.
Michael Weidler
| Jack, If you not going to bother reading the posts, why do you insist on wasting our time? Marsden has sent myriad pictures of CabinTaxi - actual photographs and a real life video in fact. Stop "trying to visualize" and go look at the damn thing!!! Raytheon designed a supersized PRT - not a GRT. Fewer cars are needed to operate as GRT. If you operate "heavy" cars as PRT, the price per car is greater than a true PRT car, which means the system cost goes up. --- On Sat, 11/6/10, Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> wrote: |
Jack Slade
In any case, no matter what the size or shape of your vehicle, you should make the attempt to streamline it, just for appeareances to your customers.
An elevator does a good job, BUT: If you are going to make it travel horizontally, at any speed....STREAMLINE IT. I know that some German Engineers will disagree, because "It does not matter". And they are right, technically, but they are also wrong because appearances DO MATTER.
Jack Slade
Jack Slade
Marsden Burger
Jack, Richard,
I will try to address most of the issues below. However, I was only slightly joking when I said that it would take consulting fees at some point before I would explain all there is to understand about why a $300 million system developed as it did – the reality is that I would not divulge most of the detail information for simple consulting fees.
Clearly, you are concerned about the guideway costs, and guideway costs are a big issue. What you should have noticed if you have been following this field for some time is the costs of guideways become greater at the end of the development then at the start. There are many reasons for this increase, varying individually with each system, but the bottom line reason is that the system developers did not know as much at the time of their original estimates as they do at the end. The increased costs are a reflection of what they have “paid to learn” through their development costs.
Your statements about vehicle weights being the driving factor on guideway costs only tell me that you have not yet paid your development costs lessons, and I will not provide that information. These are not difficult issues, and if I were to relate them, most would say, oh, we knew that - but you do not, , or you would not be making these statements, and most do not, who have not gone through a “network system” development. I have pointed you in the right direction, and I have told you the truth. If you chose not to believe me, I surely understand and wish you well. I will state it one more time: the guideway costs for small vehicle GRT are the same as for small vehicle PRT. That does not mean that these cost are as low as the unsubstantiated PRT costs that have been, and still are, bantered around for years by undeveloped concept systems – cost levels that will never be. If you are fortunate enough to reach a point in your development where you learn this lesson, then you will have been forced to have “paid the price of development” like programs that have already gone before.
We have developed a process to pay for the high costs of PRT/GRT systems through the private sector. It is an evolutionary process, but it will work and can be started quickly. We sit on the most advanced urban transit system in history, and we are looking for partners.
Best wishes,
Marsden
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Gronning
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010
8:18 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre
Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
Great set of preferences Jack! I have a few questions and comments inserted below...
On 11/6/2010 6:54 PM, Jack Slade wrote:
|
OK, I will try to give a serious answer, instead of just joking around. I will start first with my personal preference, the list of reasons why I think public transit is only getting minimum ridership.
[Marsden Burger] You would appear to be more fortunate than many that must take mass transit.
Pedestrian is the most important mode in our cities – do you have problems walking on crowed sidewalks?
Do you immediately head for the stairs when someone tries to share your elevator – or get off the elevator immediately when someone comes in so you can wait for an empty one?
2. I don't like waiting in the cold, rain, and snow even for a few minuites...same ridership of zero [Marsden Burger]
Jack, what wait time is acceptable for you? Peak period wait time for PRT in the Hamburg study was 42 second on average. Average wait time for small vehicle GRT was, 47 seconds - is 5 seconds longer, too much? Off peak is of course a different story, PRT 7 seconds, GRT 60 seconds.
3. I don't like slow speeds, and if each vehicle makes many stops that is all you can get..slow.
Jack, you made a valid point when you described the operation of the Morgantown system as not being like an APM, but rather vehicles wait on a group and then traveling direct. This is not a “normal” way a transit operation might work in today’s cities. However, moving to take advantage of automated operation can change many things. Our team in Germany was dedicated to providing high quality transit service, and we had a full PRT system as a standard – no group has a sub-three-second system yet today. We had no desire to operate something that gave poor service. I think you will find these travel times a bit surprising. (By the way, this study has been available on Jerry’s site for at least two years.)
“Peak Period” average trip travel time, including wait time: PRT 9 minutes 58 seconds. GRT average trip travel time, including wait time and transfer time: 9 minutes and 5seconds. When you start to reach the stage of real comparisons in the real world, like guideway costs, things often come out differently than what you might have expected. Here we have a denser network for PRT than we do for GRT to cover the same area - denser network, more miles to travel than a less dense network. Add to this the greater activity in the network and the result is poorer travel time for PRT than GRT. You can see the change in results in the Off Peak: GRT 9 minutes 24 seconds, PRT 7 minutes 56 seconds. Picture what the Peak Period difference would be for this over-and-under small vehicle GRT network, compared to single level PRT trying to serve the same area. Single level PRT would undoubtedly have worse travel times in the Off Peak as well as the Peak Period.
4. I don't like transfers, and as system cost per mile goes up, the system mileage goes down, which means greater walking distances , and more transfers to get to destination.
[Marsden Burger] Transfers were dealt with above, and again, the cost per mile is not going up with GRT. In the Hamburg study, the system cost per km for PRT was 30% higher than for GRT. I know this is not what the PRT world wants to hear, but 5000 PRT vehicles vs 400 GRT vehicles. These cost have to be somewhere. A twelve passenger vehicle is not three times the cost of a three passenger, and there are twelve times the number of vehicles needed for a comparable PRT network. Small vehicle PRT loses in the cost column to small vehicle GRT, but this study still recommends PRT because of the overall service levels. Without small vehicle GRT, we are not going to evolve into PRT. That is why we developed small vehicle GRT in cooperation with the Hamburg Hochbahn’s implementation plans. We have been there and done that. No concept systems have.
|
|
There were other dislikes, but all less important than these.
|
If you start with an expensive guideway, it is still expensive when you try to convert to PRT, and this has to be reflected in farebox prices. Current fare in Toronto is $2.85, which is great if you are going 10 miles, but terrible if you want to go just 1 mile. Compare this to a farebox price of 15 cents/mile, lets say with a 25 cent minimum fare.
At this price I can go 10 miles for $ 1.50, or go to lunch and back for 50 cents. Is anybody sure that I won't get at least double the ridership, not just 25% more? |
|
|
More to the point, if ridership can be
increased, why should there be just one fee? Don't we live in the computer age?
Can't a fare collecting system figure out an equatable fare? It could be
according to time and energy used. In fact, a rider could probably pull up
his/her trip on his/her iphone or computer and get exactly what he/she used in
energy and time, and what it would have been with any other system; actual
figures for car, SUV, bus, and LRT. (Pickup?)
|
I don't have a price/mile cost for Cabintaxi guideway, but I know that a 12-passenger vehicle has to weigh at least twice the weight of a 4-passenger, so the guideway has to cost at least twice as much. Compare the excavation problem alone for the Cabintaxi design, which is not needed for Skytrax, TriTrac, Unimodal ( SkyTran), Megaway( hope I got that right) and the cost has to go up even more. |
[Marsden Burger] ?
Wouldn't it be some sort of a geometric
increase in price? If vehicles increase in weight and size, they need bigger motors,
brakes, more power, and not only a heavier guideway, but bigger footings, more
space... What have I left out?
[Marsden Burger] Your basic premise does not hold in a situation where the vehicles cross section does not get bigger and weight is distributed along the guideway on a second undercarriage – which is Cabintaxi small vehicle GRT.
Are system plans for maximizing loads in
order to put bigger numbers on charts, or plans for making better, more
comfortable and convenient transit in order to attract more riders? Jack
already mentioned a cheaper system.
|
I could go on with this for a few pages, but don't want to. I just tkink you have to start with the cheapest guideway possible, build many more miles than you otherwise would, not bother with 2-way service on any street, and go network rather than line-haul. [Marsden Burger]
Jack, Find a single level network of any size, and lets compare it to a 2-way network of over-and-under. I am not saying there might not be one where the single level is more effective, but other than small systems, where a shuttle of GRT is going to be far superior, I have never seen one.
I also want to add that, when I first saw Morgantown, the vehicles are rather odd-looking. I think we are used to cars that are wider than they are high, and I think we should try to give people what they are used to. Higher than width looks top-heavy. |
With all due respect, I get the same feeling from ULTra and 2Getthere's vehicles. I don't dislike them, they just seem strange to me, as high as they are. Vectus is 6 passenger...(???)... and they also are talking about GRT vehicles. I think that they already have a strong enough track for it.
|
|
Re: Your question about the one-day Daventry Convention. I think it is probably because the stodgy, opinionated prople who don't understand PRT are going on with the same arguments that were used at Morgantown to convert too a GRT system, and we have been having the same on this list for 15 years. The " Bigger is Better Crowd" just wont give up.
I may tell them this, if I bother to tell them about what I think about one-day conventions.
Jack Slade
Richard Gronning
Thank you for these civil and informative remarks.
<snip> We have been there and done that. No concept systems have.
It's a point well taken!
I know an engineer who has been at this PRT thing since the '70s (not Ed). He said that he thought that CabinTaxi's guideway was overstressed. He thought that the design of the switches made them very expensive and drove the system price very high. Since I'm not an engineer, I don't know if this is true. Maybe you would like to address these comments.
<snip> ...explain all there is to understand about why a $300 million system developed...
Interesting! I heard other remarks similar to this at ATRA conventions. Others should take note. Maybe a conversion to today's dollar would be in order.(?)
<snip> ...and most do not, who have not gone through a “network system” development.
Another very informative remark and reflects on your comment above this one.
Thanks again,
Dick
eph
Just 3 points to consider:
- Spacing between pillars. Imagine a roadway with pillars every 12 m
(40 ft). At city speeds, this would look like a wall of fence posts
(without the fence). Light standards and utility poles are usually
spaced at least 45 m apart and this usually means a tall guideway
structure. Aesthetics do matter as you have stated.
- Cost per mile. PRT will not be immune to putting a premium on short
trips because of limited guideway capacity in certain areas.
Adjusting the price is a way to maximize revenue on the system. Long
trips bring in more money if there is a per km component (or even
zones) and so paying more per km is "normal". Also, GRT is cheaper
than PRT but I think buses serve that purpose better. This doesn't
mean that a group of students going from one class to another can't
share a podcab. Grouping CAN be done but the trip is still station to
station.
- Rail cars have a track width about half of their width 4' 8.5" track
for 9.5' cabs and nobody complains about their aesthetics. I agree
that the Cabintaxi "look" would need updating, but the basic shape
doesn't need to change. Have you seen the Honda Element and Nissan
Cube?
F.
On Nov 6, 6:54 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> OK, I will try to give a serious answer, instead of just joking around. I will start first with my personal preference, the list of reasons why I think public transit is only getting minimum ridership.
> 1. I don't like travelling with groups of people I don't know, and often don't like. If I have to do this my use of the system does not reduce by 75%, it reduces to ZERO.
>
> 2. I don't like waiting in the cold, rain, and snow even for a few minuites...same ridership of zero
>
> 3. I don't like slow speeds, and if each vehicle makes many stops that is all you can get..slow.
>
> 4. I don't like transfers, and as system cost per mile goes up, the system mileage goes down, which means greater walking distances , and more transfers to get to destination.
>
> There were other dislikes, but all less important than these.
>
> If you start with an expensive guideway, it is still expensive when you try to convert to PRT, and this has to be reflected in farebox prices. Current fare in Toronto is $2.85, which is great if you are going 10 miles, but terrible if you want to go just 1 mile. Compare this to a farebox price of
> 15 cents/mile, lets say with a 25 cent minimum fare.
>
> At this price I can go 10 miles for $ 1.50, or go to lunch and back for 50 cents. Is anybody sure that I won't get at least double the ridership, not just 25% more?
>
> I don't have a price/mile cost for Cabintaxi guideway, but I know that a 12-passenger vehicle has to weigh at least twice the weight of a 4-passenger, so the guideway has to cost at least twice as much. Compare the excavation problem alone for the Cabintaxi design, which is not needed for Skytrax, TriTrac, Unimodal ( SkyTran), Megaway( hope I got that right) and the cost has to go up even more.
>
> I could go on with this for a few pages, but don't want to. I just tkink you have to start with the cheapest guideway possible, build many more miles than you otherwise would, not bother with 2-way service on any street, and go network rather than line-haul.
>
> I also want to add that, when I first saw Morgantown, the vehicles are rather odd-looking. I think we are used to cars that are wider than they are high, and I think we should try to give people what they are used to. Higher than width looks top-heavy.
>
> Re: Your question about the one-day Daventry Convention. I think it is probably because the stodgy, opinionated prople who don't understand PRT are going on with the same arguments that were used at Morgantown to convert too a GRT system, and we have been having the same on this list for 15 years. The " Bigger is Better Crowd" just wont give up.
>
> I may tell them this, if I bother to tell them about what I think about one-day conventions.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> From: Marsden Burger <Cabintaxic...@msn.com>
> Subject: RE: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010, 3:01 PM
>
> Jack,
>
> Short of asking for a consulting fee for the information I am providing here J, let me just lay out some more images and let you think about it some more. (Borrowed from the Booz Allen analysis)
>
> Some thoughts as you look at these images.
>
> My shoulder width is 22 inches, and I am 5’10” 180lbs. The “outside” dimension of the first vehicle is 62 in.
>
> I tried to maintain the scaling from Booz Allen, for the first two images.
>
> The Cabintaxi vehicle that you are looking at it a 12 passenger small vehicle GRT.
>
> The height of the Cabintaxi vehicle is 167 cm (why it as shown below with a slight variation I am not sure. The Hamburg drawings have them the same at 167.)
>
> The carrying box beam girder of the Cabintaxi system is approximately 45 cm wide. For the single level, the beam height is approximately 90 cm.
>
> You can make up your own minds in the advantages and disadvantages of the inside running beam approach to the outside running beam approach, again, that is not really the issue that I am addressing.
>
> There is more guideway cost issues between systems than there is between small vehicle GRT and small vehicle PRT. It is just that no one has small vehicle GRT but Cabintaxi.
>
> Also, think a bit. Is it not interesting that the newly announced Daventry conference, following on English PRT experimentation, is now addressing PRT/GRT applications, where before, Daventry was only talking PRT. What do you think the “English PRT experimentations” might be showing.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Marsden
>
> We are looking for partners!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2010 2:27 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
>
>
> I am not sure if Marsden is correct. Enlarging everything that was proposed to a concept that was priced at $80 Million per mile is what killed the Raytheon Project. Won't it do the same to any system that proposes to run individual vehicles on over-sized guideways?
>
>
>
> I am still trying to visualize his statement about PRT vehicles seating people 3-abreast. I hope this was a misprint. If it wasn't, I can see how he anticipates a stability problem. I just can't get the picture of a vehicle that is 6 feet long and 10 feet wide, and the aerodynamics are terrible.
>
>
>
> Jack Slade
>
> From: Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Centre Island Station design for bi-directional Guideway
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Saturday, November 6, 2010, 3:58 AM
>
> Well, if Marsden is correct, systems will need to start out as GRT until the network gets big enough. So just run the GRT cars as PRT when the network gets big enough and slowly take them out of service as rolling stock is replaced.
>
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
>
> read more »
Jack Slade
There is only 1 main point: If people don't like to use it, there is no point in building it. Convenience is 95% of people's preference, so we can never quite match the private car. All I can hope for is to come as close as possible.
I have seen the Cube, but won't be buying one. I also won't buy another VW Diesel until the put an automatic transmission in one. I know that, to a VW Engineer, this is almost like swearing, but I want the Convenience.
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eph
whether it gets built.
I agree, people are willing to pay for convenience - Cars are/driving
is VERY expensive.
Or maybe the diesel-automatic transmission combo is reserved for the
more expensive Audi line? Convenience is expensive and PRT will cost
more (than GRT) but deliver better value if comfort and convenience is
wanted.
F.
>
> read more »
Jack Slade
I was hoping that quoting about 3 times my" simple guideway estimate" would be enough to take care of things costing more as you progress. I admit I could be wrong.
However,if you have some engineers that can build a guideway to support 4000lb vehicles that will cost no more than the same design to support 1500lb vehicles, please let me know how to get in touch with them. I certainly want to know where to find them when I need them.
I also want you to know that I was sincere when I recommended streamlined little pointy noses on vehicles. I know it makes no difference to the performance, at the speeds we are talking about, but when you are selling something "perception" may be 50% of the battle. It is probably why Bombardier and other Companies do it to their trains, because I know it makes little difference to performance.
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Slade
| Frank, I wish you would stop saying thatPRT is more expensive than GRT. Please, and if you can get Brad to cease with his $100,000 per vehicle crud, so much the better. It is his job to put out pro-robocar statements, but don't help him. |
--- On Sun, 11/7/10, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
|
eph
posted some study data that indicates this and it's pretty intuitive
that even a 6 person podcar running like an unscheduled bus is more
efficient (in energy use and number of vehicles) than a podcar is for
an average of 1.3 people. I'm not saying it's better, just cheaper
per passenger and cheaper for capital cost.
This is the second time you add a Brad "comment" when responding to
me. I don't know what this is supposed to imply, but this sort of
innuendo (whatever it is) isn't appreciated. I don't think this is
"us" and "them" territory and pissing off people who are willing to
listen and be convinced isn't the way to promote PRT IMHO.
F.
On Nov 7, 5:07 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Frank, I wish you would stop saying thatPRT is more expensive than GRT. Please, and if you can get Brad to cease with his $100,000 per vehicle crud, so much the better. It is his job to put out pro-robocar statements, but don't help him.
>
>
> read more »
Richard Gronning
recalculated and said that t6he current guideway was rigid enough to
have posts at 90' (30m)
Power line poles are 120' (40m)
Jack Slade
When you imply that PRT is more expensive than GRT, I naturally assumed that you were talking about vehicle cost, which is why I put in the dig about Brad. I Was NOT trying to get you upset.
I do see you point now....it is cheaper if you find a few people who all want to go to the same place, and move them together. I may even agree, if you find a way to ask them if they want to all travel together, the important point being that they have to agree. Let's agree on how their agreement :
If they all agree, they all willingly board the vehicle, lets say bound for Kanata....
If they disagree, 5 of them find another mode of travel, and I have lost 5 customers.
I do remember saying this, in a post many years ago: It would be possible to operate PRT in rush hour in this sort of mode ( just a matter of programming) if the extra capacity is needed because of the rush, and because early in developement there might not be enough lines built to handle such a rush in exclusive PRT mode. However, if you are taking your wife and 2 children out for dinner later on, I don't think you would still want it to be in that mode.
I can even see this being more acceptable in a City like Ottawa, where you have a preponderance of office workers, than it might be in the downtown mix you get in many Cities. I don't want to make this too long, so I will just say that my conclusion was for a car that can carry 2 adults and some children, with an all-up weight limit of 1500 lbs. Exceed the weight limit, no matter what the mix, and you get to use 2 cars. This is not exactly written in stone, but it is what I am aiming for.
Jack Slade
|
Dennis Manning
> I will stop as soon as you explain to me why it isn't so. Marsden has
> posted some study data that indicates this and it's pretty intuitive
> that even a 6 person podcar running like an unscheduled bus is more
> efficient (in energy use and number of vehicles) than a podcar is for
> an average of 1.3 people. I'm not saying it's better, just cheaper
> per passenger and cheaper for capital cost.
This is only true if you ascribe favorable use characteristics by the
customers like a high load factor for GRT while providing a lower level of
service - more waiting, slower trips due to stopping, and possibly more
circuitous routes. I think it also depends on the size of the networks. Any
GRT advantage drops rapidly as the number of stations rises.
Dennis
eph
factors.
When you take "the bus", you have agreed to ride with strangers and
wait and stop along the way and potentially transfer. When you take
"GRT", you agree to ride with strangers etc. and wait a bit for those
strangers to arrive.
Yes, GRT is a busy hour mode that becomes PRT when it isn't busy.
Yes, it should be less energy intensive to put 4-6 strangers in a
podcar for the 20 km ride to Kanata. Yes, it's a lot like taking the
bus and less people will WANT to ride than will for PRT. That's why I
think PRT should be seen as a premium service - better and more
expensive.
F.
On Nov 7, 6:44 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> When you imply that PRT is more expensive than GRT, I naturally assumed that you were talking about vehicle cost, which is why I put in the dig about Brad. I Was NOT trying to get you upset.
>
> I do see you point now....it is cheaper if you find a few people who all want to go to the same place, and move them together. I may even agree, if you find a way to ask them if they want to all travel together, the important point being that they have to agree. Let's agree on how their agreement :
> If they all agree, they all willingly board the vehicle, lets say bound for Kanata....
> If they disagree, 5 of them find another mode of travel, and I have lost 5 customers.
>
> I do remember saying this, in a post many years ago: It would be possible to operate PRT in rush hour in this sort of mode ( just a matter of programming) if the extra capacity is needed because of the rush, and because early in developement there might not be enough lines built to handle such a rush in exclusive PRT mode. However, if you are taking your wife and 2 children out for dinner later on, I don't think you would still want it to be in that mode.
>
> I can even see this being more acceptable in a City like Ottawa, where you have a preponderance of office workers, than it might be in the downtown mix you get in many Cities. I don't want to make this too long, so I will just say that my conclusion was for a car that can carry 2 adults and some children, with an all-up weight limit of 1500 lbs. Exceed the weight limit, no matter what the mix, and you get to use 2 cars. This is not exactly written in stone, but it is what I am aiming for.
>
> Jack Slade
>
>
>
> read more »
eph
how/why Mr. Anderson's conclusions differ from Taxi 2000's by 50%.
F.
Richard Gronning
He recalculated them when he was still with T2C, so I doubt if T2C shows
figures any different than Ed's.
Their web site doesn't show such items these days.
Dick
eph
It's still surprising that calculations would differ by 50%. It sure
cuts a discussion short when you say trust him, he's a doctor and no
proof is needed or provided. So how do you convince non-doctors that
guideways lighter than anything ever used for public transit before
will work other than with a demonstration loop? And finally, if it's
such a slam-dunk, why isn't one already built?
""They made the track too big, too wide,” Anderson says. In fact,
besides the basic concept of PRT itself, about the only thing left in
the Raytheon project that remains of the original design is the
switching mechanism on the cars."
http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing/1998_Fall/taxi2000.html
Even with all the information available, it seems they didn't build it
like Dr. Anderson prescribed. Why?
F.
Richard Gronning
On 11/7/2010 7:22 PM, eph wrote:
> Oh yes, doctor, sorry, wasn't thinking/wasn't meant as a dig.
>
> It's still surprising that calculations would differ by 50%.
I'm not an engineer, but I've seen this; Ed usually has a book full of
info for every figure that he states.
> cuts a discussion short when you say trust him, he's a doctor and no
> proof is needed or provided.
Hmmm, I don't recall saying that...(???)
> So how do you convince non-doctors that
> guideways lighter than anything ever used for public transit before
> will work other than with a demonstration loop?
Ed has repeatedly called for exactly that for as long as I have known him.
> And finally, if it's
> such a slam-dunk, why isn't one already built?
The $64 million question for everybody in this area.
> ""They made the track too big, too wide,� Anderson says. In fact,
> besides the basic concept of PRT itself, about the only thing left in
> the Raytheon project that remains of the original design is the
> switching mechanism on the cars."
> http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing/1998_Fall/taxi2000.html
From what I've seen, they modified that as well, but not much.
> Even with all the information available, it seems they didn't build it
> like Dr. Anderson prescribed. Why?
Again, the $64 million question for everybody in this area. Maybe
outside this area too?
I often ask why they didn't replace the "O"rings on a particular space shot.
Dick
Gary Penn
On Nov 7, 2010, at 7:22 PM, eph wrote:
>
> It's still surprising that calculations would differ by 50%. It sure
> cuts a discussion short when you say trust him, he's a doctor and no
> proof is needed or provided. So how do you convince non-doctors that
> guideways lighter than anything ever used for public transit before
> will work other than with a demonstration loop? And finally, if it's
> such a slam-dunk, why isn't one already built?
>
> ""They made the track too big, too wide,” Anderson says. In fact,
> besides the basic concept of PRT itself, about the only thing left in
> the Raytheon project that remains of the original design is the
> switching mechanism on the cars."
> http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing/1998_Fall/taxi2000.html
>
> Even with all the information available, it seems they didn't build it
> like Dr. Anderson prescribed. Why?
>
> F.
>
"F", I gather you are a young fellow to whom the events of 1992 seem long ago. Here in our group of graybeards many of us vividly remember the slow implosion of the Raytheon/Rosemont project.
Some who post here were much closer to the events that I but the consensus seems to be that the Chicago Transit Authority and the City involved wanted a bigger company with more money involved and Defense contractor Raytheon, the current world's largest producer of missiles according to Wikipedia, was then interested in diversifying. A deal was reached which transferred the Taxi2000 design rights to Raytheon which was then to do the development work including a test track and bid on a relatively large scale circulator in Rosemont in the Chicago suburbs that would connect with a CTA train station.
The Taxi2000 designs are virtually all Dr. Anderson's work. If he subsequently has recalculated the hollow trust guideway design for wider spaced pillars he was refining his own work, some of it dating from the 1970s. However, according to the consensus account of what went wrong Raytheon, which is certainly a competent missile and radar maker, was seized by a bad case of the "not invented here" syndrome and chose to redesign the the system very extensively. This was partly said to have involved demands by the transit customer to use "standard transit parts" such as bus air conditioner units and bus wheels and tires. Raytheon was in a defense orders slump then, why they were looking at diversification , and assigned underemployed radar engineers with no particular qualifications for the job to handle development. They re-engineered it into something they were familiar with, the automobile. The individual vehicles went from 1100 pounds each to 6000 pounds, from linear electric motor traction and braking to wheel motors and wheel brakes. Part of the growth of the vehicles in size and weight may have be attributable to demands from advocates for the handicapped that wheel chairs be able to wheel on and turn to face the front. Taxi2000 had accommodated wheel chairs sideways by folding two thirds of the bench seat. Finally, Raytheon is said to have then owned an engineering company which had the capacity to produce large diameter pipe in excess of demand so the( re-) designers were directed to use it in the guideway, which they did, greatly increasing cost, size and visual impact.
Dr. Anderson had estimated his system would cost $10 million per mile, including stations and vehicles, a figure that almost surely needs an inflation calculator applied to it to bring it up to 2010 dollars. I hear various figures for Raytheon' proposal - I am remembering $45 per mile. Other's have apparently heard (or remember, not the same thing after a point) higher figures. A test track did get built, in Massachusetts and operated with three vehicles and a one station for at least a couple of years, presumably during the winter as well. Unfortunately, no one seems to be interested in reviving the Raytheon PRT-Edsel so the data gained is not worth much.
The question of how much impact vehicle weight has on overall system cost seems to remain unresolved. Mr. Henderson has said that his company's calculations are that increased weight has a relatively minor impact, that is, of course, on the Megarail type guideway. It appears that Dr. Anderson seem to continue echo race car designer (Lotus) Colin Chapman's maxim "simplify and add lightness".
As to a guideway lighter than anything ever used for public transit before: the relevant question is how much can guideway cost be reduced if the individual vehicles are sized to a module equal to "the back seat of a taxi" and weight 1100 pounds empty instead of more than 100, 0000 pounds? A lot of people dislike the term Personal Rapid Transit because they feel "Transit" is a stigmatizing word and it's use is bound to cause the listener's thinking to default to trains whose weight is measured in tons and must follow brick wall stopping rules because trains don't stop very well.
BTW, one of the reasons some of us older True Believers continue to be enthusiastic about the Taxi2000 design even though the company has never shown a knack for fund raising or marketing is that Dr. Anderson put so much of his work out available to public while most of the competitors have kept secrets. The material used to be on the Taxi2000/Skyweb Express site but it is still available at
http://www.prtnz.com/component/option,com_docman/Itemid,57/
in New Zealand, where else?
Gary Penn
Austin, Texas
Jerry Schneider
>Remarks interspersed;
>
>On 11/7/2010 7:22 PM, eph wrote:
>>Oh yes, doctor, sorry, wasn't thinking/wasn't meant as a dig.
>>
>>It's still surprising that calculations would differ by 50%.
>I'm not an engineer, but I've seen this; Ed usually has a book full
>of info for every figure that he states.
>>cuts a discussion short when you say trust him, he's a doctor and no
>>proof is needed or provided.
>Hmmm, I don't recall saying that...(???)
>> So how do you convince non-doctors that
>>guideways lighter than anything ever used for public transit before
>>will work other than with a demonstration loop?
>Ed has repeatedly called for exactly that for as long as I have known him.
>> And finally, if it's
>>such a slam-dunk, why isn't one already built?
>The $64 million question for everybody in this area.
>>besides the basic concept of PRT itself, about the only thing left in
>>the Raytheon project that remains of the original design is the
>>switching mechanism on the cars."
>>http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing/1998_Fall/taxi2000.html
> From what I've seen, they modified that as well, but not much.
>>Even with all the information available, it seems they didn't build it
>>like Dr. Anderson prescribed. Why?
>Again, the $64 million question for everybody in this area. Maybe
>outside this area too?
>I often ask why they didn't replace the "O"rings on a particular space shot.
What I've heard is that Raytheon management told the project
engineers to use only "off the
shelf" components (i.e. don't invent anything new) and that they
required that a pipe be used
as a central element of the guideway as they owned a pipe company
that could supply them.
Beyond that, there was likely a "not invented here" reason and
probably several others.