Again PRT gets the shaft
David Brough
Over the past couple of years, an interesting scenario has been unfolding in a part of Vancouver (BC) called Burnaby, involving an effort to improve upon a bus route connecting a mountaintop university campus with an LRT link at the bottom of the hill. Seems that some 10 - 15 days a year, snow prevents the buses from climbing the hill, which effectively shuts down the university. A townhome community associated with the university commissioned a study that suggested using gondola as an alternative. Translink, the local socialist transit authority, issued an RFP in September, 2010.
MISTER, which most on the site are familiar with, uses supported pods, tried to get in the line-up, but its proposal rejected because it arrived a day late (and perhaps a dollar short, since MR offered to built it solely as a private transit system – meaning no funding whatever from the government). Unfortunately, the local press portrayed it as a 'single rider rail car”, which it most definitely was not. http://www.burnabynow.com/Would+single+rider+rail+cars+work+transit/4219169/story.html No clarification was ever printed – which pretty well blew it away as an alternative.
Good 'ole CH2MHill got the nod to prepare a Business Case, which yesterday (January 12/11) Translink finally released, the synopsis here
Here's links to the reports
http://gondolaproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Burnaby-Mtn-Gondola-Business-Case-2011.pdf
Take particular note on ChsMHill's take on PRT:
"...not suitable for this application as the ridership demand is higher than such systems are designed for and the point-to-point nature of demand would not play to PRT’s strengths"
Note that PRT failed in the category “Operating Limit”, “Does the expected alignment/operation of a particular alternative fall within the proven operating parameters of that technology? This test accounts for factors such as maximum allowable grade, minimum allowable turning radius, and passenger capacity”
Notwithstanding that there was substantial 'movement' between MR and Translink throughout, there is not a single word about PRT MR or its desire to participate (and especially that it offered to do it as a private entity) in Translink's scopings or its site. Talk about respect. Rodney Dangerfield would love it.
Comments, anyone?
Dennis Manning
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.
Robbert Lohmann
Which means that whatever bid you put in, doesn't matter any more.
CH2M Hill has gained a good understanding of PRT working at the Masdar
project. I believe the statement is correct that if this is a point-to-
point line connection it does not play to the strengths of PRT. I
can't see how you would be able to argue that comment.
Not knowing the alignment and the grade (should probably read the
links), it is possible that a grade caused by the optimum alignment
for the gondala is less suited for PRT. The question becomes whether
the technology had to fit the alignment or whether an appropriate
alignment should have been determined based on the characteristics of
the technology considered...
When you look at the capacity requirement, it ends up with one vehicle
every 7,4 seconds (on average) in the early phases to 6,3 seconds
later: if you assume 6 passengers per vehicle and a 100% utilization
rate! When I use the highest average occupancy we achieve at Masdar
(2,4 passengers per vehicle), it means 2,9 seconds (on average)
initially and 2,5 seconds ultimately. I can never get around how it
makes sense for a point-to-point system to have vehicles spaced at
less than 5 seconds. I still believe in this case it would be easier
to use a larger vehicle...
Robbert
Jack Slade
|
|
|
Jack Slade
I still haven't investigated fully, but I do have some experience with this area, from long ago.
The first thing you have to understand about people in this regionis: They have never learned to shovel snow, most of them have never seen a truck with a snow-blade on the front, and they have never sen the little attachment that spreads sand on slippery surfaces.
They have also never seen an expressway, unless they have travelled out of the area, and are convinced they don't work well. If they could see beyond their nose they would learn that one snow-plow could handle the huge 4-inch snowfalls that they very occasionally have....cost about $70,000 plus teaching one janitor to drive it.
The learning curve has a long climb in this whole area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruff
late.
Maybe I should clarify. It wasn't a day late. I personally delivered
MR's proposal and can speak personally that it arrived BEFORE the
deadline. Jack (Slade) pegged it right:“They can ...make anything
appear late, mis-filed, or even lost”. And in this case, they did.
And, as I pointed out, sanitized any mention of PRT as an option from
their site, save CH2H Hill's vague mention -- and dismissal.
As for PRT's strengths and point-to-point, a major point in MR's
proposal was that instead of point-to-point and merely serving the
university community, it could make numerous stops – not just around
the university – and include the surrounding community to boot. That's
what I call a plus – not a negative!
As for CH2M Hill having "gained a good understanding of PRT", please.
They're as biased as biased can be. I had a similar experience with it/
them at Salt Lake City and a dose of the same contemptuousness in
considering it as an option in an area called Sugarhouse.
http://www.shstreetcar.com/
Someone's going to give those guys a comeupins, and I'm thinking of
electing myself.
Back to Translink, though, interesting that the project is being
shelved, ostensibly because of the high cost: $156 million. I'm
wondering if the thought of being sued by those who would be subjected
to the endless stream of peeping toms on the overflights was also
considered. I love this Portland resident's exercise of his First
Amendment right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuck_the_Tram_sign.jpg
As for Jack's comment: “How can anybody refuse a proposal that's
free”. Dead on. What part of FREE doesn't Translink understand? Or
want to. Maybe what Translink and other transit authorities really do
understand is that PRT -- or anything else that can be privately run
-- is one of the nails in their socialist transit coffin.
As for 2G and your goal of 2.5 seconds, I'm reminded that Cabinentaxi
demonstrated .5 seconds back in the 1970s, and while I congratulate
you for getting it actually running, I hardly categorize it in the
same league as MISTER or any other suspended form of transit. Perhaps
it's time to re-categorize PRT into the two camps it actually is.
Dave Brough
Jack Slade
Here is what I think: This project seems to have been created to provide business to a local group that is already operational in the area. I have pointed out that keeping the road open to the UV Site could be done cheaply, so that is not the real problem. The other edge of the sword is that people have to Get To the LRT to ride it, and as soon as the City gets a very few inches of snow everything shuts down. If you try to get anywhere by car you may average 2 MPH.
The students may try to use the LRT, but I doubt if many of the Professors do, so I think the whole plan is just a scam to create business for this Company. They will have a hard time explaining to the population why they want to spend 150 million when they could have a more versatile system for free, but I am sure they will think of something.
I cant be of much help; they hate everybody East of Alberta, especially us here in Ontario.
"Not Invented Here" probably carries more weight out there than anywhere else that I know of, even the old US of A.
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Again PRT gets the shaft
