[t-i]Fwd: Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association]

[Richard Gronning]

Subject: FW: Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association

 

 

 

 

Aviation safety subcommittee misses the point

By Barbara F. Hollingsworth

Leave it to Congress to hold not one, but two public hearings and still not get to the heart of the matter: For at least six years, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has failed to heed warnings by commerical airline pilots who reported serious safety concerns that put the public at risk. And the very same safety issues are still not being adequately addressed even now.

Like the first hearing held a week earlier, last Wednesday’s inquiry by the Senate Aviation Subcommittee focused on the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 in Buffalo, which killed all 50 people aboard and one on the ground. The lack of adequate training and pilot fatigue were cited as the two major contributing factors by FAA administrator Randy Babbitt and National Transportation Safety Board acting chairman Mark Rosenker.

However, neither Babbit nor Rosenker mentioned the fact that FAA had been warned about these same issues six years prior to the Colgan crash by commercial pilots with sterling cockpit credentials and decades of flying experience. Instead of being commended for their candor, however, these pilots were medically grounded in retaliation for speaking up. And instead of defending their own members, the Airl Line Pilots Association looked the other way as their lives and careers were ruined.

Yet not one of these former pilots were called to testify before the subcommittee, even though several offered to do so and two even traveled to Washington at their own expense. Consequently, none of the senators, including chairman Byron Dorgan, D-ND, asked Mr. Babbitt exactly how he planned to prevent future suppression of mandated safety warnings by airline and FAA officials.

Former United B-777 captain Dan Hanley, head of the Whistleblowing United Pilots Association, wasn’t allowed to tell subcommittee members that he was forced out of the cockpit after complaining about pilot fatigue – the very same issue the subcommittee is now investigating - and that the same kind of legal and economic pressures the airlines experienced after 9/11 still prevent pilots from voicing their concerns today.

A former Continental pilot who suffered the same fate says that the physician who fabricated a medical diagnosis that permanently grounded him after he filed a safety complaint now works for the FAA, so those pilots who do muster the courage to speak out are still under the threat of losing their jobs. But because he wasn’t allowed to testify either, Babbitt wasn’t questioned about this breach in the aviation safety system.

One overworked young pilot who attended the hearing told me afterward that calling in to report excessive fatigue means he will not only lose his own pay, but his entire flight crew would also be docked as well. This policy puts added pressure on sleep-deprived pilots to fly even when physically impaired - which apparently contributed to the fatal Colgan crash.

Why didn’t the FAA address the pilot fatigue issue before 51 people died in Buffalo? Babbitt should have been asked that question, but wasn't. 

Passengers literally put their lives in the hands of airline pilots every day. They should be appalled to learn that the federal agency with direct responsibility for aviation safety has ignored safety warnings by pilots for years, and allowed airline management to interfere with its primary mission to protect the flying public from known safety hazards. 

And members of Congress are still letting them get away with it.

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.




Barbara F. Hollingsworth 
Local Opinion Editor 
The Washington Examiner 
www.dcexaminer.com 
Phone: (202) 459-4945 
Fax: (202) 459-4994

 

=

[Walter Brewer]

I'm not taking sides in the pilot fatigue, or whistleblower aspect of this.
But as noted the current emphasis is largely because of the pilot condition
questions brought about by the 50 fatality crash near Buffalo. The Captain
apparently slept in the pilot lounge before the flight and the co pilot
bummed rides overnight to get to Newark from her home in Seattle.
There are some points of interest relative to manuel vs automatic.
The emphasis on pilot condition came about because the airspeed was allowed
to get so low the stall warning and then stick pusher activated. Until that
point the aircraft, despite moderate icing was on autopilot, a violation of
rules. The response was also criticized and attributed to fatigue. The
aircraft received a strong nose up command, causing stall, whereas
prevention would have been probable if the opposite nose down was performed.
At least there are enough uncertainties that the fatigue issue needs the
attention it is getting. And the unexpected emegency that has come up also
in the DC train crash enters. It is alleged these pilots were not trained by
the airline in stall warning/stick pusher responses.
The media and politicians have jumped all over this and written the whole
event off as pilot error.
Indeed predicting the unexpected is impossible for humans and automation.
So it could be something about the unexpected and probably first time ever
that created the pilot response.
I have trouble believing this, and hope that NTSB does a thorough job with
the extensive records from the surving black box. Indeed looking at them
there is no question the nose up maneuver occurred. But I cannot belive a
pilot with hundreds of hours to be at fault. Within minutes in a student's
first flight, getting the nose down is demonstrated # 1 reponse. It's been a
few years for me, but even for a private pilot license stall recoveries from
turns and precision spin recovery has to be demonstrated.
Thus the odds in my book of a malfunction (gasp) in the autopilot
decoupling, or similar are much more than zero. Hopefully the final report
will cover the options well.
But again not to detract from the fatigue/ encounter the unexpected event
issue.

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Gronning" <rgro...@gofast.am>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:56 AM
Subject: [t-i] [t-i]Fwd: Whistleblowing Airline Employees Association]


> Anybody interested in another form of advanced transportation and safety?
>
> >
>

[Jack Slade]

I think you are correct that even a new pilot would go nose down and apply power in the event of a stall warning. I am not familiat with that aircraft, but perhaps Dick can tell us if the autopilot would have to be disengaged first, and if that act might initiate the nose-up condition (depending on trim settings) and thereby deepen the stall.   Jack Slade --- On Thu, 7/2/09, Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:

[Walter Brewer]

Indeed the black box records show nose up trim developing for about 15 seconds before the autopilot disconnects automatically, and it is after then that the nose up movement of controls and elevator take place.

 I can send you the black box records if you would like.

[Richard Gronning]

Jack & Walt;

I wonder what the local news has to say..........   In my estimation the original title, given by British writer Christopher Hitchens, "The chattering class," is fully appropriate.

Jack, I wonder if you, as a new pilot, would push the nose over in instrument (non-visual) conditions and close to the ground. You are correct in saying that the autopilot should have been disconnected in icing conditions. The questions; 1) Did they actually know that they were being iced? 2) {...the biggie!} Were they properly trained?

From the reports that I have received, the condition was, "Tail section icing." They may not have seen ice on the wings and concluded that they weren't in icing conditions, even though it was forecast. (OK, not rational.) Because the wings may have been de-iced, they may not have been able to see ice on the tail section.

These days, with flight management systems, it's normal to have the autopilot engaged for most-to-all flight conditions, including auto-land. One of the main reasons is pilot overload. The autopilot becomes the 3rd pilot onboard with the absence of the 2nd officer in older aircraft. One of the main reasons for conducting flight operations in this manner is the incessant commands of Air Traffic Control. In the U.S., ATC is 1960s technology. Airports are overcrowded.  ATC has, in my estimation, never fully recovered from the Reagan firing of PATCO. The chatter is usually unbelievable! It's distracting in the extreme when a person is trying to manage an aircraft. I'll guarantee that this factor is NEVER mentioned in any safety report. I suppose that it wouldn't be that bad at Buffalo.

Icing on the horizontal and vertical stabilizers on this aircraft produce some unusual characteristics. In a 30+ year career, I never flew an aircraft that had icing problems separate from the wing icing. From what I saw in a training video, this condition can produce abnormally high pressures on forward movement of controls (pointing the aircraft down) and unusually light pressures on aft movement of controls (pointing the aircraft up). So, the situation is set up. If this condition of icing occurs and the the aircraft is on autopilot and is disconnected, the aircraft will probably want to climb. Because of the differences in control pressure and the differences from the feel of an aircraft without ice, the pilot is likely to over-control and the aircraft will porpoise, or oscillate up and down. This alone can cause a stall.

From what I've heard, the crew members were never trained in a tail section stall. It should go without saying that it's impossible to blame a crew for doing, or not doing something correctly if they aren't trained properly. This goes for all jobs and not just flying.

Pilot pay was mentioned originally by somebody on the [t-i] list. Small, commuter airlines don't pay very well. They could get away with this in the past because the job was seen as a training position for the major airlines. The average person took lessons at the local airport, flew as an instructor, and then signed on the local carriers, the next training position. These people were all young. they could stand bad pay and bad hours. But now, the majors have stopped hiring. Now they're stuck in their 40s with a low-pay, bad hour job. So you have a morale problem to compound the situation.

I haven't looked into the rules for crew rest in a while. I've heard that it's worse for air crews than it is for truck drivers. This shouldn't be! And the air crews' rest should be supervised more carefully. I know that there are many Asian carriers that absolutely are worse when it comes to crew rest. They pay a price. And it's always called, "Pilot error!"

Just to tie it into other forms of transportation, rest is important to crews managing transportation systems. What was the info on the crew rest in the D.C. crash? You haven't heard either? Carry this reason a bit further and ask about the rest of the maintenance crews, since this section seems to have played the major part. How about a fully automated system? Isn't it at least monitored? And, how about the security people?

Dick

[Walter Brewer]

Richard,

Not to prolong this marginally relevant topic but, and I can also sent the recordings if you wish:

The pilots knew they were in "moderate" icing and so reported to traffic control.(The co-pilot had not encountered it before!) They were unlikely to know the details of where it was most forming, tail vs wing, etc. All deicing ewuipment was turned on including propellers and pitot tube.The aircraft was responding to commands adequately.

They were at ~1,500 ft not in instrument conditions, but a light mist.

 

 Walt Brewer

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

From: Richard Gronning

[Dennis Manning]

We were talking some about subways a few days ago. Fares from around the world:

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/subway-fares-around-the-world.php

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

If Mexico has a .15 fare they must be able to build tunnels really cheap there so they can make a profit.  I found http://www.wilshiremonorail.net/MonorailVsSubway.htm which shows an average $225,000,000 per mile for a mile of subway and tunnel.  Profitable --- probably not.

Jerry Roane

[Jack Slade]

Thanks, Dick. I don't know what their altitude was when this occured, and I am wondering why something on the voice recorder doesn't clarify what was happening.  I was in Florida when this happened, so all I know has been from the news media. Maybe Walt can send you the details, they would mean more to you than to me.   Jack Slade --- On Fri, 7/3/09, Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> wrote:

[Dennis Manning]

When comparing LRT and PRT we keep facing the metrics that favor LRT to PRTs detriment. The one discussed recently was the line haul capacity of LRT versus line haul capacity of PRT. It should be the network capacity of PRT that is featured.

 

Another is the cost of guideway per mile. PRT typically requires only one-way guideway between stations, and the LRT stations are typically twice as far apart. This clear advantage gets lost in a simple guideway cost per mile comparison.

 

At David Gow's web site this is dramatically shown. http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html (scroll about halfway down to section "Papers and Exhibits: Details". Just to the right select Phase II ). However, if you compare the overall system cost to the number of stations provided the PRT advantage is a whopping 38 to 1, i.e. for the same cost you get 38 times more stations.

 

What would that comparison be for the Edmonton project? 80 times?

 

Here's the reason I think this is an important point. Transit planners all over country are big TOD supporters. The line is simple: With PRT you can get 20 times more TOD.  20 times more area within walking distance.

 

I used 20 times as an example, but it's not a hard comparison to make. David's example is probably high because of the LRT tunneling costs, but virtually any side by side comparison will yield a huge difference on a cost per station basis.

 

Dennis

      

[Mike C]

Dennis,

The problem with network capacity is that transit professionals and
the public don't understand it. They've dealt with lines their whole
life, and the notion of a network is completely foreign. So when you
argue network capacity, they just ignore it. It reminds me of the old
single CPU vs multi-CPU argument. For decades, IBM was able to squelch
multiprocessor development by stressing the raw efficiencies of a
single CPU mainframe. Logically, multi-CPU machines would have been a
huge win for the typical time-sharing application of mainframes, but
IBM was able to sell the business world on raw single-CPU power.

But the good news is, PRT can still win even comparing to the LRT line
metric, so why not make that point, with a short statement at the end
"...and PRT is a network, so it also has access to the capacity on
parallel lines"? Consider the recent Minneapolis line comparison I
made: even without taking network capacity into account, PRT still
wins, so why introduce complexity that the public will simply not
understand?

Of course, all of us know that line capacity is just the beginning of
the PRT story.

Mike C.

On Jul 4, 2:55 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> When comparing LRT and PRT we keep facing the metrics that favor LRT to PRTs detriment. The one discussed recently was the line haul capacity of LRT versus line haul capacity of PRT. It should be the network capacity of PRT that is featured.
>
> Another is the cost of guideway per mile. PRT typically requires only one-way guideway between stations, and the LRT stations are typically twice as far apart. This clear advantage gets lost in a simple guideway cost per mile comparison.
>

> At David Gow's web site this is dramatically shown.http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html(scroll about halfway down to section "Papers and Exhibits: Details". Just to the right select Phase II ). However, if you compare the overall system cost to the number of stations provided the PRT advantage is a whopping 38 to 1, i.e. for the same cost you get 38 times more stations.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:55 AM 7/4/2009, Dennis M. wrote:
>When comparing LRT and PRT we keep facing the metrics that favor LRT
>to PRTs detriment. The one discussed recently was the line haul
>capacity of LRT versus line haul capacity of PRT. It should be the
>network capacity of PRT that is featured.

True, but just saying it doesn't solve this problem or take it off the table.

Without some way to calculate network capacity in a manner that is
comparable to a corridor or network LRT capacity figure, that can be
readily understood by the general public, I don't see how you can
deal effectively with this issue. And, I don't know how it can be
calculated with the use of a simulation model, a realistic future
demand matrix and a host of assumptions about travel behavior and the
operational/performance characteristics of the competing PRT and
rail/bus modes.

The one example I can cite that does address this problem in a useful
manner is that done by the Aerospace study decades ago. They compared
a rail/bus transit plan with their PRT plan in an LA setting and
showed how the PRT plan would perform as compared to the rail/bus
plan. This part of Irving's book (Chapter 11) was written by Harry
Bernstein. How it went over among those to whom it was presented, I
don't know.

The details are presented on pages 299-301 in Irving's book - note
all the assumptions that were part of the calculations. I've not seen
anything better than this and I think that this is the only way to
deal effectively with the capacity problem (and more generally,
comprehensive transport plan comparisons).
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/laprt.htm For those who
don't have a copy of the book, a digital copy is available at:
http://tinyurl.com/6mh557

Unfortunately, the ability to do this kind of calculation is not
widely available, is not quick and cheap and requires the interested,
contending parties to agree on the assumptions that together
determine the results (a difficult if not impossible task). And, of
course, changing the assumptions will produce different results which
may be more pleasing to some of the participants, leading to an
almost endless series of arguments that could well reduce the clients to mush.

[Dennis Manning]

Being steeped in LRT thinking may have some of them trapped, but I don't
think it would trap private investors. The second part - more TOD per dollar
should be easy for anyone grasp.

[Oded Roth]

When one ask wrong question he get wrong answer.

If capacity is the main transportation problem it is much better to
cram passengers on cattle trains. The main issue is not capacity but
moving passengers and goods from origin to destination on requested
time. In general line transit modes do not move people neither from
the exact origins nor to the right destinations and not on the right
time.

Network transit solutions can answer the right questions, and the
network high value may be valued by Metclaf's Law and its derivatives.

Oded Roth
http://www.transportationet.com

On Jul 4, 9:55 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> When comparing LRT and PRT we keep facing the metrics that favor LRT to PRTs detriment. The one discussed recently was the line haul capacity of LRT versus line haul capacity of PRT. It should be the network capacity of PRT that is featured.
>
> Another is the cost of guideway per mile. PRT typically requires only one-way guideway between stations, and the LRT stations are typically twice as far apart. This clear advantage gets lost in a simple guideway cost per mile comparison.
>

> At David Gow's web site this is dramatically shown.http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html(scroll about halfway down to section "Papers and Exhibits: Details". Just to the right select Phase II ). However, if you compare the overall system cost to the number of stations provided the PRT advantage is a whopping 38 to 1, i.e. for the same cost you get 38 times more stations.

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

I have to disagree with this assumption that TOD is an infinite bucket of customers.  The reason TOD works for the landowners near the stations that local politicians get to pick is exclusivity.  If you spread the wealth you divide the wealth and exclusivity goes away.  TOD would not work for example if every house was a PRT station hub.  There would be no concentrated foot traffic past the politician's Starbucks franchise.  It would be diluted by the ratio you are claiming for PRT station versus rail station math.  You may be right that TOD proponents are not smart enough to understand why exclusivity makes a few people money and screws the masses (business as usual) but there may be enough Starbucks franchise owners who can tug on the purse strings of their pocketed politicians to get PRT canned and to a greater degree DM because we essentially do take the station to the individual level.  No one wants to buy a Starbucks franchise for my back lawn if I am the only person who passes my back lawn each day.  In order for the TOD concept to make a few money it requires that the majority give up their money to them. 

Money is a technique to motivate people to do things they would not normally do.  It flows in a circle and if it does not properly motivate people to give their life's essence to the rich guy at the train station development, then it is not a good tool for them to use that way.  

Jerry Roane

[Dennis Manning]

Jerry:

 

I didn't say TOD was "an infinite bucket of customers". I'll leave it to others to argue the value of TOD. I just know that TOD is the typical transit planners darling.

 

Dennis

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

I gave you credit for them not understanding why TOD is their Nirvana.

Jerry  

[Dennis Manning]

Here's latest story on the stiffening opposition of HSR from SJ to SF.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090704/ap_on_re_us/us_high_speed_rail

 

Why not high speed PRT for last leg?

 

Dennis 

[Michael Weidler]

So far that argument hasn't worked for me. Back in 2000 I worked out an alignment to cover the same area as LINK (in Seattle). The basically line haul alignment had 24 square miles of walk up area. It would have made it possible to remove a couple hundred bus runs from the service area. --- On Sat, 7/4/09, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> Subject: [t-i] wrong comparisons To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 11:55 AM

When comparing LRT and PRT we keep facing the metrics that favor LRT to PRTs detriment. The one discussed recently was the line haul capacity of LRT versus line haul capacity of PRT. It should be the network capacity of PRT that is featured.   Another is the cost of guideway per mile. PRT typically requires only one-way guideway between stations, and the LRT stations are typically twice as far apart. This clear advantage gets lost in a simple guideway cost per mile comparison.

At David Gow's web site this is dramatically shown. http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/prt.html (scroll about halfway down to section "Papers and Exhibits: Details". Just to the right select Phase II ). However, if you compare the overall system cost to the number of stations provided the PRT advantage is a whopping 38 to 1, i.e. for the same cost you get 38 times more stations.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 02:48 PM 7/4/2009, you wrote:

>When one ask wrong question he get wrong answer.
>
>If capacity is the main transportation problem it is much better to
>cram passengers on cattle trains. The main issue is not capacity but
>moving passengers and goods from origin to destination on requested
>time. In general line transit modes do not move people neither from
>the exact origins nor to the right destinations and not on the right
>time.

I think capacity is PRT's greatest perceived problem. Cramming is
not a desired answer. Being able to convince people that network
capacity is sufficient, at some point in the future (deciders and
regular people) is an important task.

>Network transit solutions can answer the right questions, and the
>network high value may be valued by Metclaf's Law and its derivatives.

Can you describe how you would employ Metclaf's Law and its derivatives
to deal with this problem?

[Charl du Toit]

Well, I sort of qualify for both categories, and certainly do not
understand - this leaves only the devotees, I'm afraid.
I do not understand discussions of "network capacity", largely because there
is such a lot of snake-oil offered in lieu of solid numbers for "capacity"
based on looped networks.
See my previous post, it is not sufficient just to say that a network will
provide more capacity.
It actually may not, depending on...well, just about everythig.
There is no generic solution to a specific location problem.
There will be times when bicycles are best.
I am immediately suspicious of Mode Zealots who are sure they have found the
Truth.
Monorail and Train people are infamous for this.
Will PRT be next?
__________
-Charl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike C" <mwil...@gmail.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 8:26 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons

[Charl du Toit]

Capacity is indeed immediately seized upon, I believe wrongly.
If PRT has a saving grace, it is amenity.
Sell that, as was the case for Heathrow, and you can prove the numbers in
practice.
Oded partly dewscribes this in the post below.

Metcalfe's Law I'm afraid is wholly not applicable to this discussion.
Bob Metcalfe invented Ethernet and described - in small networks - the value
of increasing the number of "compatibly communicating devices".
It has nothing whatever to do with physically moving people or goods around
on a network.

________
-Charl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 2:56 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons


>

[Dennis Manning]

So far no argument has worked in the US, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use the best you can find.

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

From: Michael Weidler

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 5:12 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons

[Jack Slade]

I think the most effective argument is "Convenience" and "affordability". One on one, you can show anybody the conveniences, and the simplicity of construction compared to LRT or Streetcars. Most people understand  that if it is easier to do it costs less.   I once had a scheduled (5 min) meeting with a politician. It stretched into an hour, because he became interested.  Unfortunately, he was voted out of office at the next election.   Jack Slade

[Oded Roth]

High capacity might be achieved by different ways, such as:

1. Cramming more passengers on the same given moving platform.

2. Adding more vehicles on a given route by shrinking intervals
between given number of vehicles.

3. Increasing vehicles speed while keeping safety standards.

PRT can not compete with crush loads of standing passengers on buses
or trains, (maybe GRT). In order to cram more people on a given area
it is better to use wider and higher vehicles.

In the future PRT might prove its benefits of safely movement with
short intervals and higher speed, but it will always be very difficult
to trade off the order of scale of cramming passengers.

The clear advantage of small units serving a network of given dots -
such as private cars or PRT pods - is their much better flexibility to
collect and spread passengers on a given network. The number of
combinations to connect given number of spread dots on a network is
described mathematically by exponential equations, and these
exponential numbers can hardly be served by small numbers of large
vehicles.

Certain equations describe the number of combinations to connect given
number of "n" dots:

1. n – "Sernoff's Law"

2. 2^n – "Reed's Law".

3. n*(n-1) – "Metcalf's Law".

4. n*(n-1)/2

5. n*Log (n) – Odlyzko & Tilly method.

I assume the last equation suggested by Odlyzko & Tilly is more
relevant to real transit needs.


Regards,

Oded Roth
http://www.transportationet.com

[Dennis Manning]

I think what we are getting into is what arguments to present to different audiences. More tomorrow. I'm pleasantly tired and full of potato salad, chicken, tri-tip, BBQ beans, etc. and a few beers on a typically hot night in California's Great Central Valley .

 

Hope everyone's 4th was good.

 

Dennis

[Dennis Manning]

The boasting of mass transit systems of their capacity can usually be tamed
by asking, "How much capacity do you need"? It's vastly lower than most
people think.

Here are the figures for the actual ridership for the highest daily peak
hour for some rail mass transit systems in the US:

Heavy Rail

New York 30,000
Boston 20,000
Washington DC 14,000
Chicago 7,500
Philadelphia 7,000
Atlanta 6,500
San Francisco 6,000
Cleveland 4,500

Light Rail

Cleveland 4,000
San Francisco 3,500
Newark 3,000
Sacramento 1,500

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charl du Toit" <c.du...@xtra.co.nz>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

[Mike C]

Bingo! That's the kind of argument that will disarm the nonsense
capacity argument once and for all. When LRT peak hour is only
1500-4000 passengers per hour, PRT can easily match that on a cost-per-
capacity basis.

Vuchic has tainted PRT for 30 years with the same argument: "it's too
expensive for the capacity it provides". Well, Vuchic has been
promoting LRT during that time and LRT is just as expensive per unit
capacity, while providing a lower level of service. So Vuchic is
either a moron or a hypocrite.

Another example is the Seattle streetcar. Features:

- operates 15 hours a day
- carries 140 passengers every 15 minutes, 80% standing, for a peak
capacity of 560 passengers per hour. Even if they eventually triple
frequency (questionable since it operates on streets), that's less
than 1700 passengers per hour peak, and only 1 in 5 get a seat.
- averages 8 mph
- averages 7.5 minute wait time
- cost: $53M for 2.6 unidirectional miles, $20M per unidirectional
mile.

This system is considered a *success* and they are contemplating
expanding it.

Even at 3 second headways, ULTra PRT along that exact same loop in
Seattle would easily achieve that peak capacity with all passengers
seated comfortably, would cost around the same to build, would provide
no-wait 24x7 service for less operational cost, and would have average
travel times 1/3 that of the streetcar.

The point is, the bar is so low that you don't even need to present
complex network capacity arguments which rely on advanced analysis and
simulation. A simple line capacity argument is more than sufficient to
obliterate many existing *successful* systems on just about every
single metric.

Mike C.

[Dennis Manning]

In my experience the thing that gets the most eye brow lifting is the words "travel non-stop". PRT has many good arguments. What's most effective depends on who one is talking to and the setting.  

[Walter Brewer]

Boldly I suggest we are trying to be too elegant about this. Agree if we use
complete network technical nomenclature, the community leaders are likely to
fade out quickly.
But I think what they might listen too is rather simple engineering
calculations of their community functions expressed in terms frequently
kicked around: energy use, GHG, travel times, etc, etc. And for the whole
community, or closely affiliating individual portions for very large metro
areas, instead of the part answer line haul performance gives.
Assume city xx has some LRT, and some buses in addition to the majority auto
travel.
Get the passenger miles for each mode.
Calculate energy use, GHG, better with other pollutants, travel times per
day, maybe peak also.
Now reconfigure the modal distributions and recalculate, adding PRT. Also do
for performance improvements, mpg, occupancy. etc, etc where feasible.
Do this a few times for configurations that are reasonable recombinations of
interest.
Using the modal distributions at a few performance levels as parameters,
clever analysts can generate understandable plots describing the major
trends.
To factor in the current interests for more density, this can be repeated
for travel projections that change would cause.
USDOT, Jay Andress and other experts have pinned down acceptable current
mode performance levels, energy, CO2, etc, etc.
For CO2 at least these are incorporated in my "simplified" chart attached,
and picking values from it can feed considerable of the approach described
above. The Chart's assumption is equal distribution of LRT, and Bus use. But
making that parametric change is just dogwork. More LRT will make the
transit line better, the opposite for more bus use.
Most of us can identify major trends by examination of my chart. But I
completely agree attempting to use it to convince likely people of interest
would fly like a lead balloon!

Walt Brewer

[Dennis Manning]

I need to back up a step and explain why I brought up this capacity
comparison issue in first place. Last week we received the first draft of
Sam Lott of Kimley-Horn's PRT study comparing PRT to other mass transit
systems. Sure enough they are using line haul. Still more bothersome is in
the verbal descriptions they keep characterizing PRT as low to medium
capacity. Next week at a progress meeting there will be an opportunity to
have input on the draft. So I will be making the case about capacity. It
will be directed at the consultants. Most of the others at the meeting won't
know what I'm talking about, but I'm pretty sure the consultants will. Sam
himself may not be there. If the other consultants don't get it then I'm
going call Sam himself and hash it out.

Through this study process I'm simply working to get PRT judged in the
fairest light possible.

BTW if modeling a PRT system's capacity seems formidable try modeling GRT.
Probably GRT advocate's main argument is that it will have higher capacity
than PRT. If I'm going to tangle with Sam this is likely to be the sticking
point because in talking with Sam I think he buys the GRT argument. Jerry
Schneider, maybe you can help me on that should the need arise.

Dennis

[Charl du Toit]

OK but do not confuse capacity with observed ridership.
LRT proponents will demonstrate big numbers, and you should have an answer
available using the same
performance measure.
_________
- Charl

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike C" <mwil...@gmail.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

[Dennis Manning]

Right. LRT advocates like to talk about theoretical capacity rather than
actual ridership or needed capacity.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 02:40 PM 7/4/2009, Mike C wrote:
>snip ---------------------

>Of course, all of us know that line capacity is just the beginning of
>the PRT story.

Yes, the capacity question usually arises in studies where candidate
technologies are
being selected. My view is that it is often the consultant who
strongly influences
which candidates will be included in the study. They often use the
"limited capacity"
argument to drop PRT from the list, early in the study, before most
of the public is even
aware that it's underway. They will also bring up "It's the future"
we must be thinking
about and since we all know that the growth in our town will be significant, we
need a "safety factor" since this system has to do the job for at
least 50 years. Unless there
is another party, with equal weight/authority/trust, that can present
convincing counter-arguments
in presentations before the sponsors of the study, the
lack-of-capacity argument will usually
be sufficient to remove PRT from the list of candidates.

Most sponsors of these studies are highly dependent on the advice
that they receive (and pay for)
from the consultants that they hire. And, I've never heard of a case
where effective, counter-arguments
from respected, experienced, trusted persons were ever heard. And,
it's not reasonable to expect that
most study sponsors can understand much about the technical and
performance aspects of alternative,
complex transport technologies.

I am aware of a few studies where alternative systems were considered
and presentations prepared for each
of them before the candidate selection process was undertaken. But
even with this approach, the head
consultant was in charge of establishing the selection criteria,
gathering, assessing and presenting
the information and so had considerable influence on the results and
ensuing decisions.

Perhaps what is needed is a planning process that would involve some
adversarial consultants, to present arguments
and counter-arguments, somewhat similar to what can be seen in
courtrooms. Wouldn't that be fun!

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

[Jerry Schneider]

At 01:44 PM 7/5/2009, you wrote:

>Right. LRT advocates like to talk about theoretical capacity rather than
>actual ridership or needed capacity.

When you are trying to sell a very expensive system, you will want to find
ways to show clients that they are getting a lot of product for their money,
especially when the more it costs, the better elected officials like it.

[Dennis Manning]

Jerry:

I've worked to avoid a direct comparison with LRT or even the existing bus
system and particularly the current effort to do BRT. So far so good.

PRT is in the study but will only be looked at as circulator where the bus
or BRT isn't being considered. So when it comes to PRT it's more like will
the consultants put PRT into a good light? or will they stress negatives so
that PRT is dropped altogether.

My complaint with the New Jersey PRT study was along those lines. They spent
far more ink talking about PRT hurdles than they did about PRT advantages
and potential. I'd like to steer Kimley-Horn away from that if possible.

Hopefully the way PRT has been swept away by consultants will be more
difficult as time goes by.

Dennis

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

Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 2:13 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons


>

[Lee S. Walker]

Around here, the main objection to PRT/GRT that I have encountered
from politicians is the elevated guideway, because they are only
familiar with existing imposing elevated heavy-rail guideways.

Promoting non-stop travel seems to hurt more than it helps, because
everyone who cares about non-stop service can just buy or rent an auto
here-and-now. But the media tends to focus on the "non-stop"
characteristic, resulting in coverage that paints trams as
"futuristic, pie-in-the-sky, maybe someday far in the future," -a
luxurious alternative to private autos, not to mass transit.

And the old-school knee-jerk LRT/BRT supporters dismiss AT is as
too futuristic to deserve actual consideration. The consultants are
unwilling to consider unproven technology when they can get away with
only considering much more expensive proven technology, and the
transit agency staff also prefer the more expensive ideas that are
actively supported by the retired transit-buffs.

None of those people had to admit that the economy would collapse
without unlimited cheap oil, making it impossible to keep building/
operating such expensive heavier systems.

But the real advantage of automated trams vs all other options is
cost and efficiency. The stimulus pushing so many local wasteful
projects combined with the transportation bill presents lots of
opportunities this year to clarify that our various tram technologies
are a magnitude cheaper to install and operate, and quicker enough
that a lot more people will use it. Capacity is a minor red-herring
because for any transit application, there are at least several prt/
grt technologies with the needed capacity. That is just a convenient
excuse for consultants to pretend they know the relevant facts for
their report.

What I need help with this summer is a detailed presentation
comparing 5-10 automated transit options for Berkeley, a perfect
location where we desperately need modern transit for our marina, 2-4
miles at first, instead of a costly unwanted, unfunded parking
structure. It is super-easy to get in the news here and this will
easily get national publicity in fall to make other cities think twice
before letting stimulus funds bully them towards heavier obsolete
technologies.-Lee

[Kirston Henderson]

on 7/4/09 11:33 PM, Charl du Toit at c.du...@xtra.co.nz wrote:

> Metcalfe's Law I'm afraid is wholly not applicable to this discussion.
> Bob Metcalfe invented Ethernet and described - in small networks - the value
> of increasing the number of "compatibly communicating devices".
> It has nothing whatever to do with physically moving people or goods around
> on a network.

I need to weigh in on this one. You are entirely correct. Note that Mr.
Metcalfe's original Ethernet was only good for SMALL NETWORKS because it had
no means for switching between different small networks. As an advanced
avionics engineer at General Dynamics looking at Ethernet for use in future
avionic systems, I determined that this type of network was inadequate for
such systems and developed the concept of a switched network which could
grow to any size. The system that my team developed worked perfectly but
never made it out of the lab, but its key concept of using network switching
centers (hubs) did and was subsequently adapted and modified as means of
allowing growth to a virtually unlimited network size. That is the reason
that the internet is possible.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Walter Brewer]

And don't forget the boardings trick.
In the extreme there can be multiple boardings for just a few
passenger-miles. And at least 2-4 boardings for one journey between
origin-destination pairs counting transfers.

Walt Brewer

[Dennis Manning]

I agree with much of what you say, but this paragraph puzzles me. Promoting
non-stop travel hurts more than it helps??? Autos travel non-stop??? That
doesn't line up with my experience.

<Promoting non-stop travel seems to hurt more than it helps, because
everyone who cares about non-stop service can just buy or rent an auto
here-and-now. But the media tends to focus on the "non-stop"
characteristic, resulting in coverage that paints trams as
"futuristic, pie-in-the-sky, maybe someday far in the future," -a
luxurious alternative to private autos, not to mass transit.>

Dennis

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee S. Walker" <b4p...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 3:16 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons


>

[Richard Gronning]

Touche' Charl!

This is a very disarming argument. Maybe it would be overkill to point
out a consultant's previous figures with actual figures when the system
is built, but I'd be tempted.

[Charl du Toit]

Just to get this "capacity" thing out of my system...I am not a PRT proponent, but find the idea fascinating.

And I'd love to see it implemented in the right places.

I just had a look at the link Dennis gives below, and it's clear the ridership/capacity argument is lost here.

The "system capacity" is touted as something you can only calculate by populating all the vehicles in the network!

Say what?

This is a boondoggle, and no wonder LRT and other folks just say "populate our train at the same % occupancy, thank you, our train will flatten your puny little transport system by a factor of 10"

No wonder the prospective client, sensing this doesn't sound quite right, will toss out the concept, no matter it's real merits.

_______

- Charl

[Dennis Manning]

You are all screwed up on what you are looking at. The graphics on David Gow's web site were to show how many more stations or walking area PRT would give for the same price as with an LRT or monorail. It didn't have anything to do with showing the "system capacity" issue, but I think you have made the case that it's hard to explain. It's fairly obvious from what you have posted that you don't get it.

 

I'd speculate that in your case you simply don't want to understand anything that would put PRT in a better light.

 

I'll give the "system capacity" idea one more shot. Suppose you wanted to water the lawn with two sprinklers. Then suppose that you wanted to compare watering that same lawn with many more smaller sprinklers. The amount of water the lawn needs is the same (system capacity). What pipe diameter (line haul capacity) would you choose for the pipes connecting the sprinklers?

 

Dennis

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

From: Charl du Toit

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 9:04 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons

[Jack Slade]

Dennis, there is one comparison that you have not mentioned.   That is: How much of the fare-box goes to pay driver salaries.   I do not have exact figures, but Toronto media have stated that over 80% of TTC farebox is used for this purpose, which is why a  $600 million subsidy is needed each year to keep the system running.   To top that, a $ 1.2 billion contract has just been handed out to replace the old streetcars currently in use.  None of this will be paid by TTC.   Jack Slade

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote:

[Jack Slade]

Charl, I think that is a line of crap, and you may know it. Any decent evaluation of PRT will show as many passenger movements, at 1.3 per vehicle, as LRT has with standing room only for 5 hours of the day.   There is no change in percentages (same # people going home) but there is a hell of a change in how comfortable they are going there, and how long it takes.   Jack Slade

--- On Mon, 7/6/09, Charl du Toit <c.du...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

From: Charl du Toit <c.du...@xtra.co.nz>

[Dennis Manning]

Jack:

 

No I haven't mentioned it lately. We've mostly I've been talking about capital costs. Operating cost projections for PRT are hard to estimate without real world experience. PRT will substitute system managers for drivers so it's not a complete saving to eliminate the drivers. It's a whole different set of workers needed to run PRT, but I've no doubt O&M will be lower than for manually operated systems.

 

How do the O&M costs for APMs compare to manually operated systems? Say the costs for the manual Disney system versus various airport APMs? I've never seen that kind of comparison.

 

If we can get the numbers it will be interesting to compare the O&M of Heathrow with the bus system being replaced.

[Charl du Toit]

Hang on...on that page you linked to, there's a heading:

Calculating the capacity of PRT

In there it says:

PRT is High Capacity Transit

Understanding that PRT is a network makes it clear that measurement of passengers per hour per direction becomes irrelevant. What counts is the total number of people served by the entire system, no matter the route they take or length of trip. Instead of "passengers per hour, per direction", the correct measure applicable to PRT is "passengers per hour, ANY direction". Let's hypothesize:

Number of PRT vehicles in system	5,000
Average passengers per trip	1.2
Average trip duration	10 minutes, Footnote
Average time between trips	1 minute (a generous amount of time to enter/exit a car)
Average trips per vehicle	5.4 per hour (60/[10+1])
System Capacity per hour	27,000 trips, 32,400 riders ([5.4 x 5000]x 1.2)

Footnote: Yes, only 10 minutes. Remember, "forget everything you thought you knew about mass

 

 

to which I say Bollocks and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

On what grounds can you possibly assign "average passengers per trip"?

Whatever you fancy today, perhaps?

How about 150 pax/bus in reply?

Would you accept that?

If this is what you are happy to feed people I am not slightly surprised they are sceptical about the whole thing.

Just about every time I read something about PRT, there is an element of tripe to be found.

Each is a nail in the coffin.

__________

- Charl

 

 

[Dennis Manning]

We have beat this one enough, although I have to admit that I didn't get into this area of the web site. This is one debate that will only be settled by real world PRT deployments. You predict failure for PRT. I predict success. We shall see.

[Charl du Toit]

Yes sorry I got distracted by the rest of the website.

And I don't actually predict anything at all, other than it may be unexpected!

I just don't like to see a good concept damaged by misinformation.

I'll give it a rest.

[Bob Dunning]

Alternatives 7 & 8 of the Tukwila High Capacity Transit Connector Study were two PRT alternatives that showed the strong advantages of PRT in that situation.  The two alternatives were removed from the final list of evaluated alternatives because there was no "off the shelf" PRT technology that could be purchased at the time.

http://www.advancedtransit.net/content/tukwila-high-capacity-transit-connector-study

Times have changed, so maybe they should be added back in?  At the least, there is more study out there than ever sees the light of day.  We have to remember that studies produce the results requested by the client.
--
Bob Dunning

Jerry Schneider wrote:

At 11:55 AM 7/4/2009, Dennis M. wrote:
  

When comparing LRT and PRT we keep facing the metrics that favor LRT 
to PRTs detriment. The one discussed recently was the line haul 
capacity of LRT versus line haul capacity of PRT. It should be the 
network capacity of PRT that is featured.
    

True, but just saying it doesn't solve this problem or take it off the table.

Without some way to calculate network capacity in a manner that is 
comparable to a corridor or network LRT capacity figure, that can be 
readily understood by the general public, I don't see how you can 
deal effectively with this issue. And, I don't know how it can be 
calculated with the use of a simulation model, a realistic future 
demand matrix and a host of assumptions about travel behavior and the 
operational/performance characteristics of the competing PRT and 
rail/bus modes.

The one example I can cite that does address this problem in a useful 
manner is that done by the Aerospace study decades ago. They compared 
a rail/bus transit plan with their PRT plan in an LA setting and 
showed how the PRT plan would perform as compared to the rail/bus 
plan. This part of Irving's book (Chapter 11) was written by Harry 
Bernstein. How it went over among those to whom it was presented, I 
don't know.

The details are presented on pages 299-301 in Irving's book - note 
all the assumptions that were part of the calculations. I've not seen 
anything better than this and I think that this is the only way to 
deal effectively with the capacity problem (and more generally, 
comprehensive transport plan comparisons). 
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/laprt.htm  For those who 
don't have a copy of the book, a digital copy is available at: 
http://tinyurl.com/6mh557


Unfortunately, the ability to do this kind of calculation is not 
widely available, is not quick and cheap and requires the interested, 
contending parties to agree on the assumptions that together 
determine the results (a difficult if not impossible task). And, of 
course, changing the assumptions will produce different results which 
may be more pleasing to some of the participants, leading to an 
almost endless series of arguments that could well reduce the clients to mush.
  

[Walter Brewer]

True, but in the real world around San Diego after spending 1/3 the total transportation budget for 20+ years, the average occupancy for LRT is 25%.

The argument is typically that most of the passengers on a given LRT vehicle are being taken to a destination they don't want----- so they can transfer to something else.

 

 Walt Brewer

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

From: Charl du Toit

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 12:04 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons

[Walter Brewer]

Answer: Move to Buffalo where lawns don't have to be watered.  (Just kidding).

 

 Walt Brewer

[Charl du Toit]

Well, any system must be attractive to riders in the first instance.

The last time I was in Sydney, Australia, I made a point of using the monorail (legacy of the Olympics if I recall), and being disappointed in the patronage.

Not sure why, as it covers the downtown area pretty well, including all the tourist stops. 

________

[Michael Weidler]

I would disagree. Consider the road network. Now remove all of the arterials and leave only the freeways. Drastically reduces the utility the remaining road system doesn't it? BTW, this is good description of LRT.

--- On Sat, 7/4/09, Charl du Toit <c.du...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:

From: Charl du Toit <c.du...@xtra.co.nz>

Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 9:33 PM

Capacity is indeed immediately seized upon, I believe wrongly. If PRT has a saving grace, it is amenity. Sell that, as was the case for Heathrow, and you can prove the numbers in practice. Oded partly dewscribes this in the post below. Metcalfe's Law I'm afraid is wholly not applicable to this discussion. Bob Metcalfe invented Ethernet and described - in small networks - the value of increasing the number of "compatibly communicating devices". It has nothing whatever to do with physically moving people or goods around on a network. ________ -Charl

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 2:56 PM Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons >

[Michael Weidler]

In case anyone is interested, I have attached a pdf of my proposed alignment and a pdf of the buses removed and ridership. I called the project MOLINK. The alignment removed a lot more buses than I remembered.

--- On Sat, 7/4/09, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote:

From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Saturday, July 4, 2009, 10:48 PM So far no argument has worked in the US, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't use the best you can find.

[Michael Weidler]

Something certainly needs to be done. What we are doing now is the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This is called insanity! --- On Sun, 7/5/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Michael Weidler]

PRT vendors can spend a B$ just as easily as LRT vendors can. The difference is that the customer gets a whole lot more PRT for the same B$.

--- On Sun, 7/5/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: [t-i] Re: wrong comparisons To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sunday, July 5, 2009, 2:29 PM

At 01:44 PM 7/5/2009, you wrote:

>Right. LRT advocates like to talk about theoretical capacity rather than >actual ridership or needed capacity.