Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Jerry Schneider
Jan 18, 2011, 11:54:28 AM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Dennis Manning
Jan 18, 2011, 4:25:28 PM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Good. It's a horrid project, and I hope it gets stopped. Imagine what $500m
of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in
between.
of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in
between.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:54 AM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
> It's getting worse apparently --
>
> <http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_connector_1.php>http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_connector_1.php
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
Brad Templeton
Jan 18, 2011, 4:44:58 PM1/18/11
to transport-innovators
A lot more, but the basic application they imagine serving -- transfer
from a BART train to the airport -- is precisely one of those that PRT
does not shine at, because all the people come off the train at once,
and immediately want to get to the airport. I'm not saying PRT can't
do it, or you can't make lots of docking ports to handle the pulsed
loads, but it's one of the lesser cases for PRT.
It might be more suitable for GRT, with larger pods (say 12 people)
which take up the load when a BART arrives but which can also be used
for individual travel for places along the way with some waste.
On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
from a BART train to the airport -- is precisely one of those that PRT
does not shine at, because all the people come off the train at once,
and immediately want to get to the airport. I'm not saying PRT can't
do it, or you can't make lots of docking ports to handle the pulsed
loads, but it's one of the lesser cases for PRT.
It might be more suitable for GRT, with larger pods (say 12 people)
which take up the load when a BART arrives but which can also be used
for individual travel for places along the way with some waste.
On Jan 18, 1:25 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Good. It's a horrid project, and I hope it gets stopped. Imagine what $500m
> of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in
> between.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's getting worse apparently --
>
> > <http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_conn...>http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_conn...
> of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in
> between.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It's getting worse apparently --
>
Jerry Roane
Jan 18, 2011, 5:01:50 PM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Dennis
For what it is worth I talked to the Oakland airport people several years ago about building a 30.9 mile guideway from Oakland airport to San Francisco airport and treating the two airports as one for connecting flights through the area. They were mildly interested but no action was taken. It was proposed as high speed. Imagine what several years of progress would have produced had they chosen advanced transportation. It would have tagged on the side of the San Mateo toll bridge out over the bay. Being dual mode it could link up with other transit modes anywhere along the path between these two airports. It is just sad to see failure on a scale that large.
Day after tomorrow I am proposing a 28 mile park and ride from Georgetown, Texas to downtown Austin, Texas with parking at three locations along the way. It is along the NAFTA path for big rigs slugging though Austin clogging everything up. What is proposed is 56 miles of guideway and a few ADA cars. The rest of the cars would be purchased by others in this proposal. For Brad it has no PV solar component yet except on a per individual basis. ;-)
It is our duty to keep throwing it out there and some day after a few more of these Bart things tank they may be considered. I always include the rest of the ideas (T-List site) besides mine when I present these. I want an open competition for the proposed service. I believe (key word) that I will be low bidder but if someone comes in lower still the area gets the benefit and since I live here it benefits me even if I do not get any work from the effort.
Jerry Roane
eph
Jan 18, 2011, 5:06:54 PM1/18/11
to transport-innovators
This site: http://oaklandairportconnector.com/
says BRT would be cheaper/better and that ridership projections
dropped
"The 2002 EIR for the OAC claimed 13,540 daily riders for the OAC for
2020 and the most recent ridership predictions put daily ridership at
3,770-4,670."
5,000 riders per day is PRT territory, not APM. At $500M, it's
$200,000 per "daily" rider. Even BRT seems like overkill here.
F.
On Jan 18, 4:25 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
says BRT would be cheaper/better and that ridership projections
dropped
"The 2002 EIR for the OAC claimed 13,540 daily riders for the OAC for
2020 and the most recent ridership predictions put daily ridership at
3,770-4,670."
5,000 riders per day is PRT territory, not APM. At $500M, it's
$200,000 per "daily" rider. Even BRT seems like overkill here.
F.
On Jan 18, 4:25 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Good. It's a horrid project, and I hope it gets stopped. Imagine what $500m
> of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in
> between.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
> > It's getting worse apparently --
>
> > <http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_conn...>http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_conn...
> of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in
> between.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
> > It's getting worse apparently --
>
Kirston Henderson
Jan 18, 2011, 5:20:00 PM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
On Jan 18, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Brad Templeton wrote:
> A lot more, but the basic application they imagine serving -- transfer
> from a BART train to the airport -- is precisely one of those that PRT
> does not shine at, because all the people come off the train at once,
> and immediately want to get to the airport. I'm not saying PRT can't
> do it, or you can't make lots of docking ports to handle the pulsed
> loads, but it's one of the lesser cases for PRT.
>
> It might be more suitable for GRT, with larger pods (say 12 people)
> which take up the load when a BART arrives but which can also be used
> for individual travel for places along the way with some waste.
>
Short, all elevated MicroWay™ trains with 11 passenger cars could do
it nicely at far, far less cost.
Kirston Henderson
Dennis Manning
Jan 18, 2011, 5:20:25 PM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
The ridership estimate for the BART to Airport is only 8000 per day. With a
PRT network for the area along the route it's a very different project. Size
the PRT station at BART to best meet the demand. I don't see any problem.
GRT isn't necessary and would add unwarranted cost.
PRT network for the area along the route it's a very different project. Size
the PRT station at BART to best meet the demand. I don't see any problem.
GRT isn't necessary and would add unwarranted cost.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 1:44 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
Jerry Schneider
Jan 18, 2011, 5:23:49 PM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
At 01:44 PM 1/18/2011, you wrote:
>A lot more, but the basic application they imagine serving -- transfer
>from a BART train to the airport -- is precisely one of those that PRT
>does not shine at, because all the people come off the train at once,
>and immediately want to get to the airport. I'm not saying PRT can't
>do it, or you can't make lots of docking ports to handle the pulsed
>loads, but it's one of the lesser cases for PRT.
>A lot more, but the basic application they imagine serving -- transfer
>from a BART train to the airport -- is precisely one of those that PRT
>does not shine at, because all the people come off the train at once,
>and immediately want to get to the airport. I'm not saying PRT can't
>do it, or you can't make lots of docking ports to handle the pulsed
>loads, but it's one of the lesser cases for PRT.
Or, you could use a PRT like Cabintaxi which has three different sizes
of vehicles that can be operated on the same guideway. Or perhaps
MegaRail which claims it can do the job with its MicroRail concept.
Not all PRT systems have the same attributes.
Jack Slade
Jan 18, 2011, 5:43:03 PM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Brad, I think you say that sincerely, but that you do not really understand the nature of PRT.
First: If I had to build 4 guideways to the airport, considering the short distance, it would still be a bargain compared to BART.
Secondly: Have you seen a count of how many people who arrive on each train are really going to the airport? I have not, but would need such a count before I would ever say it can't be done.
Third: If a lot of those people go to places other than the airport, I couls probably build to serve them also, and still be under the price of BART.
Jack Slade
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Gronning
Jan 18, 2011, 6:37:08 PM1/18/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
This post raises a couple of questions;
- But what would be the load, BART - airport at Peak-hour?
- What would a circulator/PRT do for BART ridership?
Dennis Manning
Jan 19, 2011, 12:31:21 AM1/19/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jerry:
Here's just a speculation on my part. BART
rigged the game so that only the most expensive type of APMs could qualify to
bid. They did it so that it wouldn't become obvious that much less expensive
APMs could do the job. That would mean in turn that BART extensions could be
done with far cheaper systems. One example is the BART envisioned $5b extension
from Fremont to near the San Jose airport. They have their own GRT study which
confirms this. They conveniently buried it. I could go on about this stuff but
it just gets me riled.
Dennis
eph
Jan 19, 2011, 8:17:55 AM1/19/11
to transport-innovators
A combination of PRT and BRT would be interesting. They could even
share the same roadways in some situations.
BRT would offer a cheaper service, perhaps over 8 or 16 hours and PRT
could offer a premium and off-hours service. The combination would
likely still be less costly than the underutilized APM.
F.
On Jan 19, 12:31 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
share the same roadways in some situations.
BRT would offer a cheaper service, perhaps over 8 or 16 hours and PRT
could offer a premium and off-hours service. The combination would
likely still be less costly than the underutilized APM.
F.
On Jan 19, 12:31 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Jerry:
>
> Here's just a speculation on my part. BART rigged the game so that only the most expensive type of APMs could qualify to bid. They did it so that it wouldn't become obvious that much less expensive APMs could do the job. That would mean in turn that BART extensions could be done with far cheaper systems. One example is the BART envisioned $5b extension from Fremont to near the San Jose airport. They have their own GRT study which confirms this. They conveniently buried it. I could go on about this stuff but it just gets me riled.
>
> Dennis
>
> From: Jerry Roane
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:01 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
> Dennis
>
> For what it is worth I talked to the Oakland airport people several years ago about building a 30.9 mile guideway from Oakland airport to San Francisco airport and treating the two airports as one for connecting flights through the area. They were mildly interested but no action was taken. It was proposed as high speed. Imagine what several years of progress would have produced had they chosen advanced transportation. It would have tagged on the side of the San Mateo toll bridge out over the bay. Being dual mode it could link up with other transit modes anywhere along the path between these two airports. It is just sad to see failure on a scale that large.
>
> Day after tomorrow I am proposing a 28 mile park and ride from Georgetown, Texas to downtown Austin, Texas with parking at three locations along the way. It is along the NAFTA path for big rigs slugging though Austin clogging everything up. What is proposed is 56 miles of guideway and a few ADA cars. The rest of the cars would be purchased by others in this proposal. For Brad it has no PV solar component yet except on a per individual basis. ;-)
>
> It is our duty to keep throwing it out there and some day after a few more of these Bart things tank they may be considered. I always include the rest of the ideas (T-List site) besides mine when I present these. I want an open competition for the proposed service. I believe (key word) that I will be low bidder but if someone comes in lower still the area gets the benefit and since I live here it benefits me even if I do not get any work from the effort.
>
> Jerry Roane
>
>
> Here's just a speculation on my part. BART rigged the game so that only the most expensive type of APMs could qualify to bid. They did it so that it wouldn't become obvious that much less expensive APMs could do the job. That would mean in turn that BART extensions could be done with far cheaper systems. One example is the BART envisioned $5b extension from Fremont to near the San Jose airport. They have their own GRT study which confirms this. They conveniently buried it. I could go on about this stuff but it just gets me riled.
>
> Dennis
>
> From: Jerry Roane
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:01 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
> Dennis
>
> For what it is worth I talked to the Oakland airport people several years ago about building a 30.9 mile guideway from Oakland airport to San Francisco airport and treating the two airports as one for connecting flights through the area. They were mildly interested but no action was taken. It was proposed as high speed. Imagine what several years of progress would have produced had they chosen advanced transportation. It would have tagged on the side of the San Mateo toll bridge out over the bay. Being dual mode it could link up with other transit modes anywhere along the path between these two airports. It is just sad to see failure on a scale that large.
>
> Day after tomorrow I am proposing a 28 mile park and ride from Georgetown, Texas to downtown Austin, Texas with parking at three locations along the way. It is along the NAFTA path for big rigs slugging though Austin clogging everything up. What is proposed is 56 miles of guideway and a few ADA cars. The rest of the cars would be purchased by others in this proposal. For Brad it has no PV solar component yet except on a per individual basis. ;-)
>
> It is our duty to keep throwing it out there and some day after a few more of these Bart things tank they may be considered. I always include the rest of the ideas (T-List site) besides mine when I present these. I want an open competition for the proposed service. I believe (key word) that I will be low bidder but if someone comes in lower still the area gets the benefit and since I live here it benefits me even if I do not get any work from the effort.
>
> Jerry Roane
>
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Dennis Manning <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Good. It's a horrid project, and I hope it gets stopped. Imagine what $500m of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in between.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
> It's getting worse apparently --
>
> <http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_conn...>http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/01/bart_oakland_airport_conn...
>
> Good. It's a horrid project, and I hope it gets stopped. Imagine what $500m of PRT could do for the airport, connecting BART, and all the commerce in between.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 8:54 AM
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
>
> It's getting worse apparently --
>
>
> --
> 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 athttp://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 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.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://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 transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jack Slade
Jan 19, 2011, 1:26:52 PM1/19/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Frank: BRT will never offer cheaper service than PRT . It is not possible to maintain a staff of drivers and do this, no matter how many math calculations you do about rush hours, which is the only time you might think you are making a profit.
You must know that driver salaries eat up 80% of the farebox take nearly everywhere, and have you prices a bus lately? Some of them are over $300,000, and I don't think you can make an investment like that for a 4hr day.
The other point is: If you can't afford one system, how can you afford two, and who would ride a bus if non-stop PRT ran beside it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Templeton
Jan 19, 2011, 2:23:23 PM1/19/11
to transport-innovators
It's worth noting that while they don't promote it in the PR, the
biggest user of transit to the airport is actually airport employees.
biggest user of transit to the airport is actually airport employees.
eph
Jan 19, 2011, 2:56:32 PM1/19/11
to transport-innovators
Jack, the idea of mixing buses and PRT is to maximize revenue. You
offer "cheap" bus fares at peak times and cheap PRT fares at off-peak
(or off-service times) so you don't have to run empty buses. You
offer Premium PRT service at peak times for families and people with
luggage etc... You then maximize PRT use and maximize bus efficiency
at the same time.
After doing a bit more reading, BRT might not even be needed, just
keep the "AirBART bus" and augment the system with PRT. Worries about
capacity go away when a bus takes the large loads.
Brad, airport employees would probably continue using the AirBART.
Perhaps reduce the operating hours to match shifts so bus driver can
do split 4 hour shifts matching peak demand. PRT might be used if an
employee is late or for off-service hours. Also, it is likely more
people would use PRT for the convenience, especially if good
destinations are available, like hotels where you can drop your
luggage.
F.
offer "cheap" bus fares at peak times and cheap PRT fares at off-peak
(or off-service times) so you don't have to run empty buses. You
offer Premium PRT service at peak times for families and people with
luggage etc... You then maximize PRT use and maximize bus efficiency
at the same time.
After doing a bit more reading, BRT might not even be needed, just
keep the "AirBART bus" and augment the system with PRT. Worries about
capacity go away when a bus takes the large loads.
Brad, airport employees would probably continue using the AirBART.
Perhaps reduce the operating hours to match shifts so bus driver can
do split 4 hour shifts matching peak demand. PRT might be used if an
employee is late or for off-service hours. Also, it is likely more
people would use PRT for the convenience, especially if good
destinations are available, like hotels where you can drop your
luggage.
F.
Jack Slade
Jan 19, 2011, 4:56:32 PM1/19/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
I have no idea why anybody would want to run a subsidized system( money-loser) during busy times, and a profit-making system during slack periods.
No real business manager would ever do this, but I suppose some politicians might. There is no accounting for politicians....just don't try to confuse them with mathematics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry Roane
Jan 19, 2011, 6:01:37 PM1/19/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jack
I think you could run a bus charter service at a profit that compensated for high traffic events. They would be nothing like city bus service and they would use used bus equipment. They would spread their coverage over several cities or states. Designing for most days is a good design philosophy.
I had a long post I was working on but was beat to the punch.
I agree the charter bus service should be a business like a couple guys with some acreage and some left over school buses you can buy for about $900 like churches do all the time.
Jerry Roane
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Michael Weidler
Jan 29, 2011, 4:50:03 AM1/29/11
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| Are you sure there would be a peak hour? Obviously, there would a time period where there are more people than other times, but would it be a crush situation similar to auto commute peak? Flights come and go during most of the day don't they? --- On Tue, 1/18/11, Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> wrote: |
Brad Templeton
Jan 29, 2011, 2:25:54 PM1/29/11
to transport-innovators
There are definitely peak hours in California, though I rarely fly
from OAK so I can't tell you about the ones there. At SJC and SFO,
there is a large volume of traffic to the various southern Cal
airports for business people doing day trips. Fares are cheap enough
to be cheaper than hotels for the night. At SFO, there's an early
morning rush for the trips east by those who want to get there before
the sun goes down. You can't really leave for the east coast after
1pm (except red-eyes and a few rare flights that land very late over
there.) This is unlike the east coast airports that can pretty much
send flights west any time during the day. For international, most of
the flights to both Europe and Asia leave early afternoon.
On Jan 29, 1:50 am, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you sure there would be a peak hour? Obviously, there would a time period where there are more people than other times, but would it be a crush situation similar to auto commute peak? Flights come and go during most of the day don't they?
>
> --- On Tue, 1/18/11, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
from OAK so I can't tell you about the ones there. At SJC and SFO,
there is a large volume of traffic to the various southern Cal
airports for business people doing day trips. Fares are cheap enough
to be cheaper than hotels for the night. At SFO, there's an early
morning rush for the trips east by those who want to get there before
the sun goes down. You can't really leave for the east coast after
1pm (except red-eyes and a few rare flights that land very late over
there.) This is unlike the east coast airports that can pretty much
send flights west any time during the day. For international, most of
the flights to both Europe and Asia leave early afternoon.
On Jan 29, 1:50 am, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are you sure there would be a peak hour? Obviously, there would a time period where there are more people than other times, but would it be a crush situation similar to auto commute peak? Flights come and go during most of the day don't they?
>
>
> From: Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 3:37 PM
>
> This post raises a couple of questions;
>
> But what would be the load, BART - airport at Peak-hour?
> What would a circulator/PRT do for BART ridership?
>
> Dick
>
> On 1/18/2011 4:20 PM, Dennis Manning wrote:
> The ridership estimate for the BART to Airport is only
> 8000 per day. With a PRT network for the area along the route it's
> a very different project. Size the PRT station at BART to best
> meet the demand. I don't see any problem. GRT isn't necessary and
> would add unwarranted cost.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> From: Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Blog post about Oakland Airport-BART peoplemover
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 3:37 PM
>
> This post raises a couple of questions;
>
> But what would be the load, BART - airport at Peak-hour?
> What would a circulator/PRT do for BART ridership?
>
> Dick
>
> On 1/18/2011 4:20 PM, Dennis Manning wrote:
> The ridership estimate for the BART to Airport is only
> 8000 per day. With a PRT network for the area along the route it's
> a very different project. Size the PRT station at BART to best
> meet the demand. I don't see any problem. GRT isn't necessary and
> would add unwarranted cost.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages