Electric Highway
eph
concept?
Electric vehicles would have unlimited range on these highways and
could be recharged while travelling.
A toll system (20 cents/km) could cover the whole cost of the project?
Once the highways are in, it's a no-brainer to add PRT capability.
Here's one discussion on the concept:
http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/car.htm
F.
Frank Randak
travel?
Frank Randak
AVT
Jerry Roane
There are always limits to any large project and copper may be a big limiting factor on building enough power capacity to push SUVs all over the nation. Any strategic metal could be a problem if a solution takes too much of it. I know right now copper is in short supply and the price is going up. There have been times when the mining industry has created their own shortages with the back and forth between unions and poor negotiating management of the mining operations. Before a call is made to electrify the highway system somebody needs to do some back of the napkin calculations of tons of copper required to do that and how that many tons of extraction from the Earth would raise the price. Also there is a wear problem if millions of heavy iron -ased cars are trying to power at 70 mph. The copper bus bars and brush materials may have a wear problem that again will require more copper resources and add some amount of PM10 from graphite to the air. I have not done those napkin calculations because we don't use a brush against wire approach but from what I have read about overhead power for trolleys the wire itself has a short life dragging along at 17 mph with very few vehicles per day rubbing that section of wire. I also don't know the energy lost to sparking and black powder buildup of these wires. I do know connects for high reliability and those use gold for corrosion and it wears off after a few thousand insertions of a few thousandths travel each insertion. The idea of inductive is just impractical. That would take tremendously more copper to try to go with trillions of pick up coils buried in the asphalt. You would think our US DOT would have run these numbers at some point. Hard to say.
I like Frank's suggestion of solar but limited to a low enough power level that the solar panels are in a reasonable contained area.
Jerry Roane
Jerry Schneider
>How about a solar powered highway that provides both Dual Mode and PRT
>travel?
Yes, that is a good idea. Interstate Traveller has included it in
their concept.
It seems to me that suspended vehicle systems may have an advantage
here, as the top of the guideway can be used to mount solar panels.
Putting a roof structure on
a supported vehicle system would also be possible, but probably much
more costly, initially and
in terms of maintenance. I wonder how often such solar panels would
have to be cleaned or dusted
off. Do solar panels ever "wear out" and have to be replaced?
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Jerry Schneider
At 11:29 AM 7/5/2008, you wrote:
>How about a solar powered highway that provides both Dual Mode and PRT
>travel?
Yes, that is a good idea. Interstate Traveller has included it in
their concept. I note that their guideway is covered with solar
panels, even though it is a supported vehicle concept. Even though
there is little evidence of engineering activity at their website, I do
think that the collection of system-level ideas they present is well
worth consideration.
Michael Weidler
| There are other conductive and electromagnetic materials besides copper. Do you have any other reasoning why inductive power couplings won't work? --- On Sat, 7/5/08, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: |
eph
too expensive. The direct connection is simpler, more efficient and
tested,
I think it might be necessary to take the public through the process
one step at a time. The next step after deciding that an electric
highway makes sense is to choose a smaller form factor for the
vehicles which reduces weight, aerodynamic drag, lane space needs and
as stated above, power requirements. I've been eyeing the Tata Nano
at $2,500 as a 4 person base vehicle. Imagine a battery powered car
you can buy for $3,000 and be zipped along the electric highway at up
to 240 km/h for 25 cents/km or so. I think that would sell.
I think how the guideway is powered - solar, wind or nuclear is a
secondary issue.
F.
On Jul 5, 9:29 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There are other conductive and electromagnetic materials besides copper. Do you have any other reasoning why inductive power couplings won't work?
>
> From: Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Saturday, July 5, 2008, 11:48 AM
>
> F.
>
> There are always limits to any large project and copper may be a big limiting factor on building enough power capacity to push SUVs all over the nation. Any strategic metal could be a problem if a solution takes too much of it. I know right now copper is in short supply and the price is going up. There have been times when the mining industry has created their own shortages with the back and forth between unions and poor negotiating management of the mining operations. Before a call is made to electrify the highway system somebody needs to do some back of the napkin calculations of tons of copper required to do that and how that many tons of extraction from the Earth would raise the price. Also there is a wear problem if millions of heavy iron -ased cars are trying to power at 70 mph. The copper bus bars and brush materials may have a wear problem that again will require more copper resources and add some amount of PM10 from graphite to the
> air. I have not done those napkin calculations because we don't use a brush against wire approach but from what I have read about overhead power for trolleys the wire itself has a short life dragging along at 17 mph with very few vehicles per day rubbing that section of wire. I also don't know the energy lost to sparking and black powder buildup of these wires. I do know connects for high reliability and those use gold for corrosion and it wears off after a few thousand insertions of a few thousandths travel each insertion. The idea of inductive is just impractical. That would take tremendously more copper to try to go with trillions of pick up coils buried in the asphalt. You would think our US DOT would have run these numbers at some point. Hard to say.
>
> I like Frank's suggestion of solar but limited to a low enough power level that the solar panels are in a reasonable contained area.
>
> Jerry Roane
>
Michael Weidler
| So your proposal is to stuff people into very small vehicles? Vehicles which USA consumers STILL don't want. What about freight? Which article did you reference? --- On Sat, 7/5/08, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
eph
vehicles are 1.5 m wide, 2 seats abreast. That's more room than you
get in a bus or a plane. SUV will still be available of course if
that's the kind of vehicle you like - they just won't run on the
electric highway.
Freight would be for pallet sized loads. Trucks and Rail cars would
still be available for larger, heavier loads.
I think looking for a complete replacement of our highways/rail would
be a mistake. I think an important portion of transportation needs
would be met by this system,
I referenced this web page: http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/car.htm
F.
On Jul 5, 11:42 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So your proposal is to stuff people into very small vehicles? Vehicles which USA consumers STILL don't want. What about freight? Which article did you reference?
>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>
robbert@2getthere.eu [2getthere]
substract space for the width of the body (can't be too small because of
sound and passive protection) and the walls are not going to be straight
(looking at it from design perspective). The most width is not required
around the butt, but the shoulders. Two people sitting next to eachother
need to be able to sit, without sitting shoulder-to-shoulder (you could
simply state airplane-standards are not good enough for PRT as people
come from the luxury environment of their cars).
Despite the above, the 1.5 will be sufficient for 2 adults, plus
possibly a small child in between them (reducing the comfort to
airplane-standards though).
Robbert
eph schreef:
eph
and car comfort. Buses squeeze 4 people abreast plus an isle in 2.6 m
and most cars are 1.8 m wide or so though they tend to seat up to 3
abreast. 2 abreast in 1.5 m seems reasonable.
To clarify the inductive coupling reference:
"
Proposed Dual-mode EVs and Infrastructure for them
In March 1976, the University of California at Berkeley's Institute
for Transportation Engineering published a paper, "Electric Highway
Vehicles... Technology Assessment of Future Intercity Transportation
Systems" contributed by Dick Fradella. It described and analyzed a
proposed EV technology and infrastructure, where EVs would carry
batteries and an onboard charger, that could be supplied power in-
transit, through conductive rolling contact on freeways.
It proposed 2 parallel recessed power strips, with 115v 60Hz or 100 to
170vdc across them. See schematic diagram at right. That would feed,
through a full-wave rectifier, a charger (responsive to battery data
and the rectified voltage waveform), that would draw unity power
factor current with 5% or so total harmonic distortion, to charge at
95% efficiency, a 200vdc battery pack, while also supplying up to
several kilowatts to a regenerative motor controller. EV battery
charging, in any garage, can be from a standard 115v 60Hz outlet, or
dc PV power, where available .
About 20 years ago, Fradella built a 300-watt demo version of a small
system based upon this diagram. It demonstrates regenerative bi-
directional speed control and proportional braking. Regenerative
battery charging automatically results whenever the motor is
decelerated. He has demonstrated it to countless manufacturers and
researchers involved with EVs. Average life of motor-cycle batteries
in the demo has been about 10 years. These batteries were guaranteed
to last only 90 days.
Quantitative energy and environmental benefits were the paper's main
thrust. It also touched on vehicle performance, electronic collision
avoidance, and automatic steering... elements of a practical vehicular
and extra-vehicular future EV system.
The paper was part of a broader study for the US DOT and DOE. It
resulted in a follow-on demonstration contract sponsored by them,
performed at Lawrence Berkeley Lab.
But DOT and DOE wanted power from the freeway to be supplied by
inductive means, so "nobody would get electrocuted on the freeway."
Fradella argued that the two conducting strips, of the electrified
freeway (one shown in cross-section at right), would be so far apart,
and accessible only by a small power probe, that any person or animal
on the freeway, trying to be electrocuted, would be instead hit by a
vehicle. He also argued that the huge, lossy, and very expensive,
buried iron cores and copper primaries of an inductively powered
system would radiate 60Hz magnetic fields with unknown physiological
consequences. Also he argued that the core and secondary on the car
would be big and heavy.
Inductive advocates prevailed. No demonstration of conductive coupling
from roadway to EV was funded. The funded demonstration project
verified that power could be coupled inductively from a roadway to a
moving vehicle -- but we already should have known it would. It also
probably verified that it is not an efficient, low-cost method, and
makes no sense from a total system perspective. When completed, the
entire in-transit power project was abandoned.
Unfortunately, conductive in-transit EV power was discarded along with
inductive. Curiously, none who argued against a conductive in-transit
power infrastructure disputed arguments in favor of it. Fradella's
paper, and this page, analyze it from a total system perspective.
Its advantages (compared to inductive coupling) are:
* Does not consume no-load power, has only slight conductive
losses.
* Installation on existing or new roadway does not require deep
trenching, is relatively low in cost.
* Equipment for it on the EV is small, light-weight, relatively
low cost.
* Rolling contacts can also be conveniently used for battery
charging, in a garage with low-cost installed 115vac or dc power
strips (like in roadway, except they'd be only 1' long and covered
completely by sliding insulation with spring return and automatic
shutdown when not in use, to keep clean and protect children and
pets); and, where power strips not installed, EV can be plugged into
any 115vac or dc outlet.
* Can use power from photovoltaic (PV) panels or wind powered
generators directly, with no 60Hz power inverters, to charge vehicles
on future highways and at future charging stations or homes. Power
would be stored, for driving after dark, in stationary flywheel
batteries, since most sources outside a range covered by central power
grids, would be solar during daylight, and wind power that's too
sporadic to be available on demand at any given time.
* Distributed PV and wind power, placed near the highways they
supply, don't need long transmission lines.
"
http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/car.htm
F.
On Jul 6, 4:40 am, "robb...@2getthere.eu [2getthere]"
Curtis Faith
eph
composites or carbon lined conductors are some ideas.
Weight relates to rolling resistance and acceleration /deceleration
losses. It also affects gradeability which means either slowing down
on hills or having a bigger motor. Rolling resistance depends on
friction which steel on steel can minimize. I'm thinking that
vehicles would ride on bogies and not their own wheels. This reduces
the cost of the vehicles.
The electric highway as I envision it would be automated and PRT
ready. It would not be a step back, but it would not attempt to
replace all modes of transportation, simply add another modal choice.
F.
Challay
bus way)and this way could be used by (diesel)-electric trucks, these
trucks would not be equipped with poles but with pantographs, which
would imply that they are guided electronically...
This experimentation would be perhaps easier in Europe where the
states have important fleets of truck and have also property of
motorways.
The problem it is that many European leaders without imagination and
are opposed to any change...
Jay Andress
Kirston Henderson
> In NYC in the 1920's about fifteen people were electrocuted when they exited
> an elevated subway car...a big problem for PRT and DM (especially supported
> PRT and DM).
Not a problem for MegaRail® and MicroRail because all of our electric
power supply bars are enclosed inside the enclosed rail tubes where they can
not be touched by people using our escape walkways.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Benke
lines and the graphite pickups, but this can't be a big problem as the
system is used in all electrified railroads, for instance the french
TGV running at 300 km/h. The problem with torn power lines killing
people in the street should also be well-known from cities with tram
systems. I suspect they have a safety system which turns power off
when wires are torn (it should be easy to do this well before the
wires hit the ground).
On Aug 2, 9:14 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:
Kirston Henderson
> I would be interested in more exact wear figures for overhead power
> lines and the graphite pickups, but this can't be a big problem as the
> system is used in all electrified railroads, for instance the french
> TGV running at 300 km/h. The problem with torn power lines killing
> people in the street should also be well-known from cities with tram
> systems. I suspect they have a safety system which turns power off
> when wires are torn (it should be easy to do this well before the
> wires hit the ground).
You don't have the problem of overhead power lines in system in which
the power supply rails are inside the enclosed guideway rail tubes. With
regard to wear, our power rails have a thin stailess-steel outer contact
surface to minimize wear. The wear is almost entirely confined to the
carbon contact surfaces on the power shoes and these have to be replaced as
a part of routine maintenance as they wear. The carbon brushes are easy to
replace and are relatively low cost items.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Luca Guala
this is not a precise data, but a personal experience: a trolley bus line
runs in front of my house and I have never seen any maintenance done to it.
I have lived here for 10 years and buses pass by at a frequency of one very
5-10 minutes. If it was to wear at the rate that someone on this list fears,
I would certainly see maintenance trucks every now and then.
I remember witnessing the repair of a trolley bus line in town: it had
broken and fallen to the ground but that was a long time ago when I was a
student.
Last year an LRT line started operation behind our house (yes, we are
surrounded by PT) and also there, I have seen no maintenance done since.
Regards
Luca
Ing. Luca Guala
area manager
gu...@systematica.net
-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] Per conto di Benke
Inviato: domenica 3 agosto 2008 15.05
A: transport-innovators
Oggetto: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
Jack Slade
I would be interested in more exact wear figures for overhead power
lines and the graphite pickups, but this can't be a big problem as the
system is used in all electrified railroads, for instance the french
TGV running at 300 km/h. The problem with torn power lines killing
people in the street should also be well-known from cities with tram
systems. I suspect they have a safety system which turns power off
when wires are torn (it should be easy to do this well before the
wires hit the ground).
On Aug 2, 9:14 pm, Kirston Henderson
eph
What do you think about using MegaRail with Car Ferries as an Electric
Highway?
This discussion has modified my view, perhaps a full size Electric
Highway with smaller PRT vehicles makes more sense.
F.
On Aug 3, 9:51 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:
Bruce Attah
Personally, I think dual-mode is pretty pointless -- sorry to offend.
PRT can do the last mile (using at-grade spurs -- see the car-park end
of the Heathrow loop for an example), so there's no need to introduce
the various complications that dualmode involves. Nor is dual-mode an
intermediate step. It can't be introduced until the guideways are
already up and working, in the form of PRT (i.e., without dual-mode
vehicles). By then, it will be unnecessary, and nor would it be in the
interest of a PRT system operator to allow dual-mode vehicles on the
system. They would be better off building the guideway to your door.
If you live too far out in the boonies for that, they'd be better off
providing a car parking space for you at your nearest PRT station.
eph
people like to smoke or eat in their vehicles and public PRT vehicles
would not allow this (as simple examples). Customized vehicles (e.g.
heated leather seats) are also popular.
An Electric Highway would allow regular vehicles and PRT vehicles to
use it's high speed capability. It's multi-purpose nature would make
it easier to accept and increase it's usefulness over PRT-only
infrastructure. So now we have a PRT system with high speed links to
other areas where a smaller PRT system would be useful. I like this
idea more and more.
F.
Bruce Attah
On Aug 17, 7:58 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think you underestimate the (perceived) value of ownership.
they have to own cars in particular. There are lots of things that
people used to think they absolutely had to own if they were to have
any self-respect, which most no longer do: pianos, for instance, which
got replaced by the big hi-fi, which as since been replaced by a
series of small gadgets. Or multi-volume encyclopaedias. Or those
fancy barometers to tell the weather by. Or gold cigarette cases.
People move on.
> Some
> people like to smoke or eat in their vehicles and public PRT vehicles
> would not allow this (as simple examples). Customized vehicles (e.g.
> heated leather seats) are also popular.
these things out. It's up to the service operator and the business
model. They could run several types of vehicle on the network,
charging a premium for the more luxurious ones. They could allow users
to lease vehicles which could be customized according to user specs,
and to pay for stations on users' property, where these vehicles would
be stored.
> An Electric Highway would allow regular vehicles and PRT vehicles to
> use it's high speed capability. It's multi-purpose nature would make
> it easier to accept and increase it's usefulness over PRT-only
> infrastructure.
vehicles on the network increases the utility of the network to any
significant degree -- certainly not to the point where it would be
worth the network operator's while to offer the service, bearing in
mind the extra costs and hassle such duplication of function would
involve. If PRT takes 50% of cars off the road, the remainder who are
wedded to their cars can drive themselves wherever they want to go, on
newly uncongested roads. After all, it is clearly what they prefer.
> So now we have a PRT system with high speed links to
> other areas where a smaller PRT system would be useful. I like this
> idea more and more.
(except across oceans). That's what I like. And I think it is doable.
eph
On Aug 17, 4:41 pm, Bruce Attah <bruce.at...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 7:58 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you underestimate the (perceived) value of ownership.
>
> I don't think I do. People like owning stuff, but that doesn't mean
> they have to own cars in particular. There are lots of things that
> people used to think they absolutely had to own if they were to have
> any self-respect, which most no longer do: pianos, for instance, which
> got replaced by the big hi-fi, which as since been replaced by a
> series of small gadgets. Or multi-volume encyclopaedias. Or those
> fancy barometers to tell the weather by. Or gold cigarette cases.
> People move on.
there's always the drive to the country or remote areas...
>
> > Some
> > people like to smoke or eat in their vehicles and public PRT vehicles
> > would not allow this (as simple examples). Customized vehicles (e.g.
> > heated leather seats) are also popular.
>
> I don't think there's anything intrinsic to the PRT concept that rules
> these things out. It's up to the service operator and the business
> model. They could run several types of vehicle on the network,
> charging a premium for the more luxurious ones. They could allow users
> to lease vehicles which could be customized according to user specs,
> and to pay for stations on users' property, where these vehicles would
> be stored.
guideway? Having to select cars based on preferences seems
impractical (depends on implementation I suppose).
>
> > An Electric Highway would allow regular vehicles and PRT vehicles to
> > use it's high speed capability. It's multi-purpose nature would make
> > it easier to accept and increase it's usefulness over PRT-only
> > infrastructure.
>
> Here's where we disagree: I don't think that allowing "regular"
> vehicles on the network increases the utility of the network to any
> significant degree -- certainly not to the point where it would be
> worth the network operator's while to offer the service, bearing in
> mind the extra costs and hassle such duplication of function would
> involve. If PRT takes 50% of cars off the road, the remainder who are
> wedded to their cars can drive themselves wherever they want to go, on
> newly uncongested roads. After all, it is clearly what they prefer.
optimistic. An Electric Highway would go a long way to transition
from user owned vehicles to publicly owned/shared ones. Container
shipping could take place along the Electric Highway as well as train-
like travel. You could ride the highway in your car until it ends and
continue your journey in autonomous (car) mode. The attraction (and
therefore paying customers) of a non-congested and high speed toll
road should not be ignored.
>
> > So now we have a PRT system with high speed links to
> > other areas where a smaller PRT system would be useful. I like this
> > idea more and more.
>
> I hate it. One system, no mode changes, door-to-door, everywhere
> (except across oceans). That's what I like. And I think it is doable.
F.
Bruce Attah
On Aug 17, 11:19 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cars will not be made obsolete by PRT, not for a long time anyway,
> there's always the drive to the country or remote areas...
what percent of trips are they? PRT could do away with 90-99% of car
trips wherever it is built. When people have done modal split studies,
they find PRT taking 30-50% ridership. That's what the first systems
will achieve, which are sparse network systems, on a grid typically of
1 km mesh or more, and having a lowish operating speed. But those
systems can be enhanced so they reach right into the places people
want to go, and quicker. Then I expect the ridership would quickly
rise to above 70%. Soon, you'd get lots of people who forgot how to
drive, or never learned, or can still drive, but haven't bothered to
replace their old car, which is gathering dust in the garage. Others,
who have sold their car, will hire a car once or twice a year for a
trip to the countryside.
> So, the only distinction between DM and PRT in your eyes is the
> guideway? Having to select cars based on preferences seems
> impractical (depends on implementation I suppose).
under the control of the system all the time, and never leave the
guideway while they are in operation. DM could be provided as an extra
feature on top of PRT, but it would add costs, and would be of utility
to few. Then there's the other sort of DM, which is just for cars,
specially-made cars, and only automates long highway trips (example,
RUF). In my opinion, that kind of DM has little chance of success. You
have to persuade people to buy these particular cars rather than any
other, and you can only do that after you've built the guideway, which
stands idle until those cars get sold.
> I think that to expect a sudden, spontaneous guideway network is
> optimistic.
expand like a rash over the next quarter of a century, accelerating,
and eventually replacing everything else. Ten years from now, no new
light rail will be built. Every place where it would have been built,
PRT will be built instead. Bus services will be retired. At the same
time, existing rail networks will begin gradually to disappear, as
their rolling stock ages, unrenewed. Eventually, the track will be
lifted, and the right-of-way reused by PRT. Highways will get a PRT
lane. Then road traffic on the highways will decline by 40, 50, 60%
and more.
> An Electric Highway would go a long way to transition
> from user owned vehicles to publicly owned/shared ones.
to their cars for longer. If you have pure PRT, you can't take
advantage of it unless you leave your car behind. If you have DM,
Electric Highway, etc., it's the other way round -- the advantage of
having a car is, if anything, increased rather than decreased.
> Container
> shipping could take place along the Electric Highway as well as train-
> like travel.
small, driverless vans each delivering one or two pallets from a
container direct from the port to the local shop where they are
demanded.
>You could ride the highway in your car until it ends and
> continue your journey in autonomous (car) mode. The attraction (and
> therefore paying customers) of a non-congested and high speed toll
> road should not be ignored.
when the bigger picture is considered, and (b) not a service that an
operator of a PRT network would find in their own best interest to
offer.
> Well, I agree it would be nice, but good luck getting there.
eph
Which PRT system are you backing/proposing? I like your idea of how a
PRT system could progress.
F.
Kirston Henderson
> Kirston,
> What do you think about using MegaRail with Car Ferries as an Electric
> Highway? This discussion has modified my view, perhaps a full size Electric
> Highway with smaller PRT vehicles makes more sense.
I obviously think that it is a good idea. If you have any doubts, see
the following url:
http://megarail.com/pdf/current/GN-CR4.pdf
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Bruce Attah
they're all at a stage right now where they can do part of the job,
but need certain improvements if they are to do the whole job. Who'll
get there first is anybody's guess.
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walter Brewer
I'm having trouble with 3570 vehicles phpd? 223 trains/hr with 16 autos
aboard gives that number, but doesn't seem feasible even if loading were off
line?
What happens to that number for range say less than 50 miles instead of 260?
Walt Brewer
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 10:12 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
Kirston Henderson
> Kirston,
> I'm having trouble with 3570 vehicles phpd? 223 trains/hr with 16 autos
> aboard gives that number, but doesn't seem feasible even if loading were off
> line?
> What happens to that number for range say less than 50 miles instead of 260?
Walt,
If trains are moving at 85-mph that means each train is moving at
448,800 feet per hour past any point. 233, 400-ft long trains occupy only
93,200-feet of guideway. The other 335,600-ft of track is open space
between trains which is 1,526-ft of open guideway space between trains which
we consider an adequate headway distance. Trains exit and to and enter the
main line from off-line stations at the full 85-mph speed and accelerate
during entry to fit into that space.
The number is for automobiles per hour passing any point along the
guideway and the total amount of guideway is really not a factor. The
presentation that you viewed is a for a total of 260 miles of guideway which
would consist of numerous different guideways going in different directions.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Schneider
snip ---------------------------
>Then there's the other sort of DM, which is just for cars,
>specially-made cars, and only automates long highway trips (example,
>RUF). In my opinion, that kind of DM has little chance of success. You
>have to persuade people to buy these particular cars rather than any
>other, and you can only do that after you've built the guideway, which
>stands idle until those cars get sold.
You are misinterpreting the RUF concept. It has defined an evolutionary path
which deals with the chicken/egg problem. It can also provide public as well
as private vehicles. And, it requires far less guideway and can provide access
to short, medium and long trips. If you really examine the website,
you will understand
it better. www.ruf.dk
Bruce Attah
appears to present the bus service as an evolutionary step, and the
car service as the culmination. To quote:
"The overall strategy for RUF implementation (at least in Europe) is
to start the system as 100% public transport and then gradually let it
evolve into a mixed system with both public and private vehicles using
the guideways." (implementation.doc)
The site author's thinking is clearly geared towards the car:
"The typical user will start at his residence (where the ruf has been
recharged during the night) and drive a few km to the nearest
rail." (FAQ.htm)
So, the non-car owner gets a faster bus (for long trips), while the
car owner, if and only if they're willing to invest in a RUF-
compatible car, gets a faster car (for long trips).
I say long trips, because switching is awkward, making the RUF
guideway non-viable for a close-knit network on a par with standard
PRT. Furthermore, the author shows an expectation that the "typical
user" will be a "few km" from the nearest entry point to the rail.
Therefore, the system is not going to be much use to the typical user
if the trip is not at least tens of kilometres in length. If the trip
is long, and switches are few (vehicles have to slow down for
switches), time will be saved, but otherwise there's little point to
it.
As if to drive home the point, the author also says, "Only few rails
are needed, because the dual-mode ruf can drive 50 km along the normal
roads."
The system is totally car-oriented, not just primarily. The buses are
little more than an afterthought, and most of the benefit of the
system goes to those who are willing to buy RUF cars. If RUF were
built, our cities would still be as full of cars as they are today --
only a few corridors would be less congested, and, meanwhile, getting
around on public transport would be, at best, marginally less lousy.
PRT is, potentially, a total solution. RUF is just tinkering.
Walter Brewer
ave/mile. That spacing is dictated by stopping requirements?
Cars on the 400 ft train are about 25 feet apart because they are
conventional length, not Dave Petrie's 8 footers.
Throughput/hr is about 75% more than a conventional freeway lane. Right of
way about the same? Your $22 million/mile is about the same as an urban
lane-mile, but twice intercity.
I guess attraction for users to pay operating cost at least is the 85 mph?
For comminities the 75% more throughput per $$$/ft of ROW.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:30 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
Palle R Jensen
From: "Bruce Attah" <bruce...@googlemail.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:49 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
> The system is totally car-oriented, not just primarily. The buses are
> little more than an afterthought, and most of the benefit of the
> system goes to those who are willing to buy RUF cars. If RUF were
> built, our cities would still be as full of cars as they are today --
> only a few corridors would be less congested, and, meanwhile, getting
> around on public transport would be, at best, marginally less lousy.
>
> PRT is, potentially, a total solution. RUF is just tinkering.
The RUF website has been created over 15 years, so if you read the early
parts you are right that the car was in focus. Later I realized that in
order to get started, it had to be started as public transport.
The RUF public transport (maxi-ruf and public ruf) is not just marginally
better than traditional public transport:
Travel time is shorter than by car today
No standing
Single seats for everybody
Extremely easy access
Can you point an any traditional system being close to this ?
Kind regards
Palle R Jensen
RUF
Jerry Schneider
>My apologies. The RUF concept does include a bus concept. However, it
>appears to present the bus service as an evolutionary step, and the
>car service as the culmination. To quote:
>
>"The overall strategy for RUF implementation (at least in Europe) is
>to start the system as 100% public transport and then gradually let it
>evolve into a mixed system with both public and private vehicles using
>the guideways." (implementation.doc)
Yes, it is a logical and necessary initial evolutionary step,
designed to deal with the chicken/egg problem
and to provide some time for the building and purchase of personal
vehicles ( some of which
could also be in public ownership) and the necessary societal and
conventional system adjustments.
>The site author's thinking is clearly geared towards the car:
As is the public's, even in Denmark which is very bicycle intensive and
spending huge amount of money on metros.
>"The typical user will start at his residence (where the ruf has been
>recharged during the night) and drive a few km to the nearest
>rail." (FAQ.htm)
I think it is a sensible expectation designed to make full
utilization of the guideway,
typically the most expensive part of the system.
>So, the non-car owner gets a faster bus (for long trips), while the
>car owner, if and only if they're willing to invest in a RUF-
>compatible car, gets a faster car (for long trips).
The non-car owner gets an on-demand, door-to-door ride in a
small, comfortable bus for short, medium or longer trips and does
not have to purchase a private vehicle unless there is a need for it.
The MaxiRUF trips times may be faster, the same or slower - depending
on a number of factors, most of which are currently unknown.
>I say long trips, because switching is awkward, making the RUF
>guideway non-viable for a close-knit network on a par with standard
>PRT. Furthermore, the author shows an expectation that the "typical
>user" will be a "few km" from the nearest entry point to the rail.
>Therefore, the system is not going to be much use to the typical user
>if the trip is not at least tens of kilometres in length. If the trip
>is long, and switches are few (vehicles have to slow down for
>switches), time will be saved, but otherwise there's little point to
>it.
That may or may not prove to be a difficult problem. The initial expectation
is very conservative - over time it may be possible to reduce the need to
slow down at the switches.
>As if to drive home the point, the author also says, "Only few rails
>are needed, because the dual-mode ruf can drive 50 km along the normal
>roads."
The point is that RUF would need a lot less guideway is needed for
areawide accessibility, as
compared to a PRT network with stations located every half mile. The ratio
might be as great as 5-10 to one, depending on the area to be served, its
density, its spatial arrangements of housing and job, it's topography, cultural
propensities for high levels of mobility, and so on.
>The system is totally car-oriented, not just primarily. The buses are
>little more than an afterthought, and most of the benefit of the
>system goes to those who are willing to buy RUF cars. If RUF were
>built, our cities would still be as full of cars as they are today --
>only a few corridors would be less congested, and, meanwhile, getting
>around on public transport would be, at best, marginally less lousy.
No, that is just not correct. Only time would tell what the mix of MaxiRUFs and
personal RUFs would turn out to be. Again, it will depend on a lot of local
factors and desires, relative costs, spatial arrangements of housing and jobs,
the value of time, and so on.
>PRT is, potentially, a total solution. RUF is just tinkering.
If it is, why don't we have at least one - after some 40 years of trying?
Kirston Henderson
> OK, I get it. The trains will operate 15 seconds apart. ~2.7 trains
> ave/mile. That spacing is dictated by stopping requirements?
>
> Cars on the 400 ft train are about 25 feet apart because they are
> conventional length, not Dave Petrie's 8 footers.
>
> Throughput/hr is about 75% more than a conventional freeway lane. Right of
> way about the same? Your $22 million/mile is about the same as an urban
> lane-mile, but twice intercity.
> I guess attraction for users to pay operating cost at least is the 85 mph?
> For comminities the 75% more throughput per $$$/ft of ROW.
Walt,
You have it about right. However, the entire guideway system is
elevated over the sides of existent freeway/road right of way and thus
requires no added ROW.
The main attractions for uses are (1) 85-mph which is much higher than
the speeds realized on most urban area freeways and roads, (2) no driving or
chance of accidents, and (3) lower overall trip cost (no gasoline use on
the electrified guideway).
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Schneider
>OK, I get it. The trains will operate 15 seconds apart. ~2.7 trains
>ave/mile. That spacing is dictated by stopping requirements?
>
>Cars on the 400 ft train are about 25 feet apart because they are
>conventional length, not Dave Petrie's 8 footers.
>
>Throughput/hr is about 75% more than a conventional freeway lane. Right of
>way about the same? Your $22 million/mile is about the same as an urban
>lane-mile, but twice intercity.
> I guess attraction for users to pay operating cost at least is the 85 mph?
>For comminities the 75% more throughput per $$$/ft of ROW.
I wonder how long the off-line guideway would need to be for
deceleration, station guideway and
acceleration of a fully-loaded 400' train being demerged and merged at 85 mph?
I think the rule of thumb for PRT networks is that an additional 15%
of the mainline guideway
is needed for off-line guideway (deceleration, station guideway and
acceleration.)
For example a PRT network with 50 miles of mainline guideway would
need approximately 7.5 miles of
off-line guideway - assuming a mainline speed of around 25-35 mph. As
the speed goes
up, this ratio would also rise. If the off-line guideway was not
relatively straight, it might also rise.
Kirston Henderson
> I wonder how long the off-line guideway would need to be for
> deceleration, station guideway and
> acceleration of a fully-loaded 400' train being demerged and merged at 85 mph?
> I think the rule of thumb for PRT networks is that an additional 15%
> of the mainline guideway
> is needed for off-line guideway (deceleration, station guideway and
> acceleration.)
> For example a PRT network with 50 miles of mainline guideway would
> need approximately 7.5 miles of
> off-line guideway - assuming a mainline speed of around 25-35 mph. As
> the speed goes
> up, this ratio would also rise. If the off-line guideway was not
> relatively straight, it might also rise.
In view of the fact that all passengers are seated, we will be able to
accelerate and decelerate at a higher rate than the 0.1g limit normally used
for mass transit with standing passengers and thus decrease the amount of
acceleration/deceleration guideway.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Dennis Manning
Why on earth would I want to pack along a heavier DM vehicle for a several
hundred mile trip? The alternative is relatively simple. Rent a car at the
destination. SM in between..
Dennis
Bruce Attah
it is still tinkering at the edges of the transport problem. You have
confirmed that the bus occurred to you as an afterthought, and merely
as a means to get the thing started. Your system only offers to solve
(or ameliorate) one small part of the transport problem, namely, that
of the trip of several tens of km, where the traveller wants to have a
car at the end of the trip. It does not help with the majority of
trips, which are only a few km. Nor does it do anything to solve the
problem of space for parking, which is so much at a premium in town
centres. It doesn't do anything to solve town centre congestion,
either. Or the problem of bad drivers.
I don't think the bus scheme you are proposing would be of much value.
To run a service adequate to cover a significant proportion of suburb-
to-city commuters would take a huge number of drivers, and you'd never
be able to find that many drivers, so the service would be marginal.
As for the service being on-demand, it would be worse than a scheduled
bus service, with long, *unpredicatable* wait-times, because of not
having enough drivers. Furthermore, the jitney service would make
journey times unpredictable. You may as well have proper bus-sized
buses (in terms of number of seats -- the low profile could work out
well), and a specified route, and a timetable.
Bruce Attah
On Aug 18, 9:50 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> Yes, it is a logical and necessary initial evolutionary step,
> designed to deal with the chicken/egg problem
> and to provide some time for the building and purchase of personal
> vehicles ( some of which
> could also be in public ownership) and the necessary societal and
> conventional system adjustments.
horse, so that the car service can be introduced.
> The non-car owner gets an on-demand, door-to-door ride in a
> small, comfortable bus for short, medium or longer trips and does
> not have to purchase a private vehicle unless there is a need for it.
unlikely.
> over time it may be possible to reduce the need to
> slow down at the switches.
> The point is that RUF would need a lot less guideway is needed for
> areawide accessibility, as
> compared to a PRT network with stations located every half mile.
accessibility, if people are going to drive to the guideway. Indeed,
PRT employed as a park-and-ride service would be of greater value to
congested cities than dualmode. PRT proposes to offer more guideway,
not because this is inherently necessary, but because it is offering
the service not only to those who drive, but also to those who don't.
Ultimately, PRT should aim to have as much guideway as there currently
is road, or nearly as much.
> >PRT is, potentially, a total solution. RUF is just tinkering.
>
> If it is, why don't we have at least one - after some 40 years of trying?
Urbmobile was proposed back in the early 1960s. Why aren't there any
dualmode systems? It's not really an argument that carries weight
either way. What matters is what is the actual potential of the
system, and what effects it would have if it existed.
Jerry Roane
Our dual mode car drops off all the dead weight when entering the guideway so it seems your claim here that the cars are somehow heavy for an X mile long trip. To my definition of dual mode is cars that drive on guideway and then convert and drive on the road surfaces that are already built and the fact that they drive in the two domains seamlessly is dual mode. If you are only talking about traditional car ferries as a different definition of dual mode then I can see why you might say this but nothing stays static and merging of all these things is a natural progression. If car ferries take hold the cars they ferry would get lighter and smaller to get more road cars on the ferries. As the cars get smaller and lighter then so would the ferries all technologies heading the same direction.
The facts are our car weighs 300 pounds in the configuration it is in when it rolls on the guideway. I challenge you to explain which PRT cab proposed weighs less. You are ignoring reality if you think you can rent a car for a reasonable cost. If you stick your head in the sand and say you can rent cars everywhere you go you just come across as a fact less advocate. We have all rented cars and the check you write barely resembles the advertised price. Just check your American Express statement and get back to me. There are special taxes jammed onto rent cars in addition to the sales taxes and other fees not to mention the insurance hidden cost where your yearly insurance premium is not being counted but it has to because you are covered in that rental and through the actuarial calculations the risk they take on on your behalf that you would wreck that unfamiliar car is part of your hundreds of dollars each 6 months you pay. Please don't tell me renting cars everywhere you go is your solution. If the dual mode car goes faster door to door than the airplane and uses 4.5 cents per mile energy cost compared to hundreds of dollars for air fare, airport parking, tip to some guy wearing a worn out fake tuxedo etc. I think it may be wise to better define dual mode when you speak ill of it. The time penalty for renting a car is horrendous. The last rent car I got was in Seattle and it took forever to get through the line and get the car. With dual mode you have your stuff there instantly and you don't have to initial the waiver on the double insurance coverage.
From an engineering number crunching standpoint the weight is NOT the energy waster. Here is a quick calculation to give dimension and scale to your assertion.
A 7000 pound car with 5 180 pound passengers (heifers) running on metal guideway rolling surface uses 11.3 hp to go 50 mph and a 700 pound car going the same 55 mph uses 7.9 hp. Your argument is based on the difference between 7.9 and 11.3 hp. (3.4 hp) Hardly a strong argument. What car ferry trains do is platoon effectively. I usually rag on platooning because the usual proposal is to follow dangerously close in an assumed single file. Long story short, car platooning is bullshit where putting 100 cars parked sideways on a train is effective "platooning" because it makes one large air envelope. The frontal area is horrible and the skin drag is pathetic but you are passing 100 cars in one man-made tornado so the energy per car is not bad and the metal rolling surface negates the weight argument. The wind is the major energy waste component and the weight is very secondary even on rubber tires. When you drop in the steel wheels on metal guideway the weight is a 3.4 hp factor no more no less and that is with 7000 pounds versus 700 which is intended to be an extreme example.
I am not following the PRT versus DM argument this weekend but it seems to be full of misinformation. I can't respond to all the posts because it would bore me (and you). Our brand of dual mode can do every last thing PRT only can do but at the end of the day you can unhook your PRT pod and drive home. I don't see the advantage feverishly trying to imposing prohibitions on reality. Reality is what reality is, and the market will make the decisions. Your assertions and my assertions mean nothing at this point. There are numbers we can crunch to predict vehicle performance but the ebb and flow of the masses no one here can predict. Who would have thought 20 years ago that tattoos would make a comeback? Only skanky women and low class drunk boys got tattoos yet the demand for tattoos is strong and the "artists" are busy. Go figure.
Jerry Roane
gary
gary
On Jul 5, 11:18 am, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Would it be easier to sell an electric highway concept than the PRT
> concept?
>
> Electric vehicles would have unlimited range on these highways and
> could be recharged while travelling.
>
> A toll system (20 cents/km) could cover the whole cost of the project?
>
> Once the highways are in, it's a no-brainer to add PRT capability.
>
> Here's one discussion on the concept:http://flywheel.esmartbiz.com/car.htm
>
> F.
gary
> I think how the guideway is powered - solar, wind or nuclear is a
> secondary issue.
What he said.
Celebrate energy source agnosticism.
gary
gary
> The electric highway as I envision it would be automated and PRT
> ready. It would not be a step back, but it would not attempt to
> replace all modes of transportation, simply add another modal choice.
So not a step back. Could it be a step forward? Could it be so comfy
that people like it best and want more?
gary
Jerry Schneider
>On Aug 18, 9:50 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it is a logical and necessary initial evolutionary step,
> > designed to deal with the chicken/egg problem
> > and to provide some time for the building and purchase of personal
> > vehicles ( some of which
> > could also be in public ownership) and the necessary societal and
> > conventional system adjustments.
>
>Exactly. The bus service is merely a means to an end, a sort of trojan
>horse, so that the car service can be introduced.
No, that is not a correct assessment. It is a necessary and useful
step in the evolutionary process and
is likely to be retained and used at some level during the life of the project.
> > The non-car owner gets an on-demand, door-to-door ride in a
> > small, comfortable bus for short, medium or longer trips and does
> > not have to purchase a private vehicle unless there is a need for it.
>
>Subject to the number of drivers being adequate, which is highly
>unlikely.
I wonder how you could possibly know about the availability of drivers
in any country where RUF might be applied? In many countries there are
large numbers of young people with no jobs and no prospects.
> > over time it may be possible to reduce the need to
> > slow down at the switches.
>
>How?
It's called technological process, bolstered by operational experience
Do you think there will be no improvements in electronic guidance technology
in the future?
> > The point is that RUF would need a lot less guideway is needed for
> > areawide accessibility, as
> > compared to a PRT network with stations located every half mile.
>
>The same amount of guideway is required for the same amount of
>accessibility, if people are going to drive to the guideway.
I don't think the term guideway means the same as the conventional
roadway system.
>Indeed,
>PRT employed as a park-and-ride service would be of greater value to
>congested cities than dualmode. PRT proposes to offer more guideway,
>not because this is inherently necessary, but because it is offering
>the service not only to those who drive, but also to those who don't.
>Ultimately, PRT should aim to have as much guideway as there currently
>is road, or nearly as much.
It is inherently necessary and don't forget the stations, many of
which will not
be allowed to have sizable parking lots adjacent or nearby. If you think more
guideway is better than less, then good luck finding the necessary
rights-of-way
and real estate for numerous station locations.
> > >PRT is, potentially, a total solution. RUF is just tinkering.
> >
> > If it is, why don't we have at least one - after some 40 years of trying?
>
>Dualmode has been around, in concept, for nearly as long as PRT.
>Urbmobile was proposed back in the early 1960s. Why aren't there any
>dualmode systems? It's not really an argument that carries weight
>either way. What matters is what is the actual potential of the
>system, and what effects it would have if it existed.
There are some dualmode systems in operation - just not the kind that
we currently are discussing. There have been many attempts to build
and test PRT systems in several countries in a demonstration mode with
only one "sale" in about 40 years. Unfortunately, we won't really know what
effects PRT will have until we have built, deployed and operated several
of them for several years. Until then, we are still only guessing that it can
be done and provide the benefits hoped for.
gary
> I don't expect a sudden, spontaneous guideway network, I expect it to
> expand like a rash over the next quarter of a century, accelerating,
> and eventually replacing everything else. Ten years from now, no new
> light rail will be built. Every place where it would have been built,
> PRT will be built instead. Bus services will be retired. At the same
> time, existing rail networks will begin gradually to disappear, as
> their rolling stock ages, unrenewed. Eventually, the track will be
> lifted, and the right-of-way reused by PRT. Highways will get a PRT
> lane. Then road traffic on the highways will decline by 40, 50, 60%
> and more.
gary
gary
> PRT should aim to have as much guideway as there currently
> is road, or nearly as much.
gary
Dennis Manning
<<There are some dualmode systems in operation - just not the kind that
we currently are discussing. There have been many attempts to build
and test PRT systems in several countries in a demonstration mode with
only one "sale" in about 40 years. Unfortunately, we won't really know what
effects PRT will have until we have built, deployed and operated several
of them for several years. Until then, we are still only guessing that it
can
be done and provide the benefits hoped for.>>
Amen Jerry amen!
Dennis
Bruce Attah
On Aug 19, 4:37 am, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> >Exactly. The bus service is merely a means to an end, a sort of trojan
> >horse, so that the car service can be introduced.
order to get the thing going -- to attract public funding for public
transit -- then there will be an "evolution towards a more mixed"
service, i.e., a build-up of the sales of cars.
> >Subject to the number of drivers being adequate, which is highly
> >unlikely.
>
> I wonder how you could possibly know about the availability of drivers
> in any country where RUF might be applied? In many countries there are
> large numbers of young people with no jobs and no prospects.
the high cost of drivers. This proposed system expects to run bus
circulation systems with very small buses (around areas of a few km
radius, about the size of those suburban bus services that are
famously inadequate in so many places). They would need three or four
times as many drivers to move the same number of people. It doesn't
seem likely to me that this is achievable.
> >How?
>
> It's called technological process, bolstered by operational experience
> Do you think there will be no improvements in electronic guidance technology
> in the future?
exist right now. RUF has designed a very awkward switch system that
limits the potential usefulness of the system. Perhaps some
unspecified technological advances will happen some time in the future
to make switching smoother and quicker, but I would suggest relying on
that prospect amounts to a design flaw.
> >The same amount of guideway is required for the same amount of
> >accessibility, if people are going to drive to the guideway.
>
> I don't think the term guideway means the same as the conventional
> roadway system.
expected to find their way to and from stations by foot, public
transport or car. In the case of DM, they're expected to find their
way to and from stations by foot, public transport or car (except for
some DM concepts, which only serve cars, and ignore non car users --
as RUF did until someone convinced the inventor that buses would be a
way to "solve the chicken-and-egg problem").
>
> >Indeed,
> >PRT employed as a park-and-ride service would be of greater value to
> >congested cities than dualmode. PRT proposes to offer more guideway,
> >not because this is inherently necessary, but because it is offering
> >the service not only to those who drive, but also to those who don't.
> >Ultimately, PRT should aim to have as much guideway as there currently
> >is road, or nearly as much.
>
> It is inherently necessary
only provides a few lines, rather than a full grid, still provides a
service, and potentially a better service than buses, trains, or trams
in the same role. Building a full grid is not *necessary*. It's a good
thing, that would exploit the advantages of PRT to the full, but if
you exploit only a few of the advantages of PRT, and place use it
simply to replace a linear bus or tram route, PRT will still be
better.
> and don't forget the stations, many of which will not
> be allowed to have sizable parking lots adjacent or nearby.
connecting suburbs to a town centre), this is a non-problem. Moving
parking spaces from town centres to the margins is a highly desirable
goal that local authorities would generally support enthusiastically,
and do. Hence "park-and-ride". If you put a simple PRT loop where a
RUF guideway would have been, it will move as many people, and it will
save on parking space and car congestion in the town centres. That's a
triple bonus as far as cities are concerned, and RUF doesn't offer it,
so PRT wins.
> There are some dualmode systems in operation - just not the kind that
> we currently are discussing.
and drive them around when the train at some destination, has been
possible since trains were invented. Yet it has never been more than a
tiny niche in transport. There are two basic reasons for this: (1)
there's very little demand for it, and (2) it is a hassle for railway
operators to offer such a service, when they can make just as much
money more straightforwardly from the passengers without their cars.
If those two reasons didn't exist, a third would also come into play:
city authorities would not eagerly support a system that makes it
easier to bring their cars downtown.
> There have been many attempts to build
> and test PRT systems in several countries in a demonstration mode with
> only one "sale" in about 40 years.
difficulty with the idea that high capacity can be supplied by small
vehicles. Again and again, that idea is met with incredulity,
suggesting it is counterintuitive. Therefore, until a full in-service
operational system exists, there will be resistance. Thereafter, I
expect resistance to evaporate quickly.
> Unfortunately, we won't really know what
> effects PRT will have until we have built, deployed and operated several
> of them for several years. Until then, we are still only guessing that it can
> be done and provide the benefits hoped for.
theoretical, but the evidence regarding DM is practical, and indicates
that DM is no more than a niche service. As for the theory, the
limitations of DM are clear: it will not solve the parking problem. It
will not solve city-centre road congestion. It will not solve the
problem of bad drivers, and the crashes and traffic jams they cause.
PRT has the potential to alleviate those problems, DM does not.
Bruce Attah
On Aug 19, 9:56 am, Bruce Attah <bruce.at...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dualmode, if that is to mean putting cars on a train, to take them off
Walter Brewer
politicians in the first place?
If the personal RUF's, or in any other similar PRT approach are available as
public vehicles won't they be the instant first choice? Especially for
non-drivers who now have to use buses/LRT etc.
Who pays how much is another issue to be sure.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Attah" <bruce...@googlemail.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:56 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
eph
On Aug 19, 4:56 am, Bruce Attah <bruce.at...@googlemail.com> wrote:
---Snip
> and drive them around when the train at some destination, has been
> possible since trains were invented. Yet it has never been more than a
> tiny niche in transport. There are two basic reasons for this: (1)
> there's very little demand for it, and (2) it is a hassle for railway
> operators to offer such a service, when they can make just as much
> money more straightforwardly from the passengers without their cars.
> If those two reasons didn't exist, a third would also come into play:
> city authorities would not eagerly support a system that makes it
> easier to bring their cars downtown.
>
ferries otherwise cost would be prohibitive and service would be too
spotty.
It would not "bring cars downtown". If you were heading downtown, you
would use a public (PRT) vehicle unless you can afford the parking
fees.
F.
Walter Brewer
Some more likely to be asked questions, and some comments below.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 5:02 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
> OK, I get it. The trains will operate 15 seconds apart. ~2.7 trains
> ave/mile. That spacing is dictated by stopping requirements?
>
> Cars on the 400 ft train are about 25 feet apart because they are
> conventional length, not Dave Petrie's 8 footers.
>
> Throughput/hr is about 75% more than a conventional freeway lane. Right of
> way about the same? Your $22 million/mile is about the same as an urban
> lane-mile, but twice intercity.
> I guess attraction for users to pay operating cost at least is the 85 mph?
> For comminities the 75% more throughput per $$$/ft of ROW.
Walt,
You have it about right. However, the entire guideway system is
elevated over the sides of existent freeway/road right of way and thus
requires no added ROW.
although probably wider. Several years ago a short segment of 4 lanes
elevated was added to an LA freeway, in the median, and without disrupting
normal traffic. Considerable use of pre-fab structure. ###
The main attractions for uses are (1) 85-mph which is much higher than
the speeds realized on most urban area freeways and roads, (2) no driving or
chance of accidents, and (3) lower overall trip cost (no gasoline use on
the electrified guideway).
you calculated the start to finish equivalent mph when considering the train
loading, acceleration to 85mph time? It would be a function of trip length
of course.
Maybe no gas used by the cars on trains, but somehow the train energy and
other costs have to be paid. Which brings up the question of how total
energy/trip compares, again vs, trip length? ###
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Schneider
>Isn't there another argument the buses are there to sell the system to the
>politicians in the first place?
Yes, I would think so. Along with some cash flow to the developer, etc.
>If the personal RUF's, or in any other similar PRT approach are available as
>public vehicles won't they be the instant first choice? Especially for
>non-drivers who now have to use buses/LRT etc
It would depend on the relative quality of the competing services. If it takes
you where you wish to go at a "reasonable" cost as quickly as you wish and
the competing modes don't and have other negatives, that would probably be
the first choice of those who think about such things.
>Who pays how much is another issue to be sure.
At the fare box as well as the often well hidden subsidies - not taking into
account the fees paid to the bond salesmen, the cost-plus contractors, the
land owners whose development potential (but not their taxes) is raised,
the laid-off bus system administrators, planners, drivers and mechanics,
the junked buses, and so on.
Kirston Henderson
> Kirston,
> Some more likely to be asked questions, and some comments below.
Walt,
My responses below set off by ***
>
> You have it about right. However, the entire guideway system is
> elevated over the sides of existent freeway/road right of way and thus
> requires no added ROW.
> ### If/when the elevated objection is overcome, so can more freeway lanes,
> although probably wider. Several years ago a short segment of 4 lanes
> elevated was added to an LA freeway, in the median, and without disrupting
> normal traffic. Considerable use of pre-fab structure. ###
*** The big differences are (1) the MegaRail® guideway is far less costly
than elevated freeway lanes, (2) vehicles on the guideway create essentially
no noise when operating and (3), the guideway is a much smaller structure
and therefore does not present nearly as much sky blockage.
>
> The main attractions for uses are (1) 85-mph which is much higher than
> the speeds realized on most urban area freeways and roads, (2) no driving or
> chance of accidents, and (3) lower overall trip cost (no gasoline use on
> the electrified guideway).
> ### Freeways when freeflow average about 70 mph now for the whole trip. Have
> you calculated the start to finish equivalent mph when considering the train
> loading, acceleration to 85mph time? It would be a function of trip length
> of course.
*** The problem is that during rush hour periods of time, most freeways
tend to saturate and the average speed drops to far less than anything close
to 70-mph. As for loading and unloading time, it takes about only as short
as one minute at each end of the trip.
> Maybe no gas used by the cars on trains, but somehow the train energy and
> other costs have to be paid. Which brings up the question of how total
> energy/trip compares, again vs, trip length? ###
*** The cost to move the vehicles using electric power from the guideway is
significantly lower than by burning gasoline in the cars. The net cost to
the driver is significantly less than driving the same route.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Walter Brewer
selling point for PRT in general is better service for non drivers. If the
PRT system pays its own way, plus some profit perhaps if a private venture,
I suspect the cost for a typical urban trip desired by a non driver will be
considerably higher than he/she now pays on a highly subsidized mass transit
vehicle. It came out during an operation budget crisis for one of San
Diego's two major mass transit agencies that the fare covers less than 25%
of operating cost, and the amortized cost of the capital cost was not
included.
Thus in many cities at least, the mass transit system is really an unnamed
component of welfare. You can imagine the response I get when suggesting
this to MT leaders! 3/4 of mass transit riders in San Diego are non drivers.
From reactions to fare increases etc etc, I suspect a large share are
receiving government assistance.
But to be consistent with all but low cost housing welfare works, then with
a PRT substituted for mass transit, all riders would pay the same fare, and
those eligible for public assistance receive a refund?
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:28 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
>
Walter Brewer
$### Even More! $###
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:20 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
> Kirston,
> Some more likely to be asked questions, and some comments below.
Walt,
My responses below set off by ***
>
> You have it about right. However, the entire guideway system is
> elevated over the sides of existent freeway/road right of way and thus
> requires no added ROW.
> ### If/when the elevated objection is overcome, so can more freeway lanes,
> although probably wider. Several years ago a short segment of 4 lanes
> elevated was added to an LA freeway, in the median, and without disrupting
> normal traffic. Considerable use of pre-fab structure. ###
*** The big differences are (1) the MegaRail® guideway is far less costly
than elevated freeway lanes, (2) vehicles on the guideway create essentially
no noise when operating and (3), the guideway is a much smaller structure
and therefore does not present nearly as much sky blockage.
elevated freeway, isn't theguideway design load higher when the train weight
is included? At 70 mph the freeway live load is less than 200 ft/ vehicle.
MR has to handle 400 ft train including 16 cars in just twice that distance.
But both have to design for gridlock. Then the freeway is weight of about 20
vehicles in 400 ft compared to whatever MR weight is.
Agree the 75% throughput advantage has to be factored in. $###
> The main attractions for uses are (1) 85-mph which is much higher than
> the speeds realized on most urban area freeways and roads, (2) no driving
> or
> chance of accidents, and (3) lower overall trip cost (no gasoline use on
> the electrified guideway).
> ### Freeways when freeflow average about 70 mph now for the whole trip.
> Have
> you calculated the start to finish equivalent mph when considering the
> train
> loading, acceleration to 85mph time? It would be a function of trip length
> of course.
*** The problem is that during rush hour periods of time, most freeways
tend to saturate and the average speed drops to far less than anything close
to 70-mph. As for loading and unloading time, it takes about only as short
as one minute at each end of the trip.
Both systems in full operation. Block to block speed overall is what counts.
What is the trip length for a driver to decide to take MR instead of the
freeway? Other than the freeway is congested that is. $###
> Maybe no gas used by the cars on trains, but somehow the train energy and
> other costs have to be paid. Which brings up the question of how total
> energy/trip compares, again vs, trip length? ###
*** The cost to move the vehicles using electric power from the guideway is
significantly lower than by burning gasoline in the cars. The net cost to
the driver is significantly less than driving the same route.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Kirston Henderson
> Kirston,
>
> $### Even More! $###
> $### Understand MR being less wide, but assuming trucks don't use an
> elevated freeway, isn't theguideway design load higher when the train weight
> is included? At 70 mph the freeway live load is less than 200 ft/ vehicle.
> MR has to handle 400 ft train including 16 cars in just twice that distance.
> But both have to design for gridlock. Then the freeway is weight of about 20
> vehicles in 400 ft compared to whatever MR weight is.
> Agree the 75% throughput advantage has to be factored in. $###
Freeways must be designed to carry large trucks that place loads of up
to more than 100,000-lbs per lane in distances of less than 100-ft per lane
in the worst case of stalled traffic. MegaRaiil® guideway must be able to
handle no more than about 17,500-lbs on each 50-ft span of guideway even in
the coupled train case. The total load of a 400-ft train is spread over
eight guideway sections.
> $### Doesn't the baseline comparison have to be made on a success basis?
> Both systems in full operation. Block to block speed overall is what counts.
> What is the trip length for a driver to decide to take MR instead of the
> freeway? Other than the freeway is congested that is. $###
You are correct, but because the overall cost per driver is less with
MegaRail and the travel speed is a constant 85-mph without the driver
needing to watch traffic and drive and should rarely encounter any sort of
traffic delay, I think that most would tend to pick the MegaRail.
>
> $### What share of the total train weight is produced by the 16 cars? $###
There are 15 CarFerries and one passenger coach on each train. In the
case of the CarFerries, the carried automobile contributes about 5,000-lbs
and the CarFerries weigh only about 1,200-lbs each.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
eph
On Aug 19, 5:26 pm, "Walter Brewer" <catca...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> One reason I bring this up, including who pays, is I believe a strong
> selling point for PRT in general is better service for non drivers. If the
> PRT system pays its own way, plus some profit perhaps if a private venture,
> I suspect the cost for a typical urban trip desired by a non driver will be
> considerably higher than he/she now pays on a highly subsidized mass transit
> vehicle. It came out during an operation budget crisis for one of San
> Diego's two major mass transit agencies that the fare covers less than 25%
> of operating cost, and the amortized cost of the capital cost was not
> included.
Electric Vehicle owners. An automated Electric Highway is just PRT on
a neighbourhood scale instead of city block scale. Branching out from
the EH backbone might also work.
Installing a small PRT system suffers from lack of destinations. It
might also be prone to incompatibility between cities. If you start
with the intercity network, it only makes sense to build PRT systems
compatible with it.
>
> Thus in many cities at least, the mass transit system is really an unnamed
> component of welfare. You can imagine the response I get when suggesting
> this to MT leaders! 3/4 of mass transit riders in San Diego are non drivers.
> From reactions to fare increases etc etc, I suspect a large share are
> receiving government assistance.
> But to be consistent with all but low cost housing welfare works, then with
> a PRT substituted for mass transit, all riders would pay the same fare, and
> those eligible for public assistance receive a refund?
whatever a monthly bus pass costs - the money can go to any form of
transportation.
Kirston Henderson
> The PRT angle is one way, the other is to provide extended range to
> Electric Vehicle owners. An automated Electric Highway is just PRT on
> a neighbourhood scale instead of city block scale. Branching out from
> the EH backbone might also work.
>
> Installing a small PRT system suffers from lack of destinations. It
> might also be prone to incompatibility between cities. If you start
> with the intercity network, it only makes sense to build PRT systems
> compatible with it.
Keep going and you will be supporting a MicroRail system that does what
I believe that you are talking about.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Bruce Attah
>
> > One reason I bring this up, including who pays, is I believe a strong
> > selling point for PRT in general is better service for non drivers. If the
> > PRT system pays its own way, plus some profit perhaps if a private venture,
> > I suspect the cost for a typical urban trip desired by a non driver will be
> > considerably higher than he/she now pays on a highly subsidized mass transit
> > vehicle.
lower than trains. And that's real profit, not just "operating
profit". Independent studies by the EU, and by consultants hired by
Daventry back this up. In fact, the EU study concluded that PRT could
be as much as 70% cheaper.
> It came out during an operation budget crisis for one of San
> > Diego's two major mass transit agencies that the fare covers less than 25%
> > of operating cost, and the amortized cost of the capital cost was not
> > included.
reasons why PRT will and must replace them. They're basically a waste
of money.
> > 3/4 of mass transit riders in San Diego are non drivers.
but who would benefit greatly from PRT.
On Aug 20, 2:21 am, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The PRT angle is one way, the other is to provide extended range to
> Electric Vehicle owners.
> An automated Electric Highway is just PRT on
> a neighbourhood scale instead of city block scale.
longish trips easier for car drivers. PRT is a device for moving
people around -- regardless of whether they own cars (or can afford
them) or not. And PRT is not inherently limited to the city block.
That's just a stereotype. PRT can be intercity.
> Installing a small PRT system suffers from lack of destinations.
> It
> might also be prone to incompatibility between cities.
the effects could be worse. If company A builds a PRT in city X that
is not compatible with the PRT built by company B in city Y, and
there's a need to hook up the networks, the worst case is that they
will have to build interchanges where people going from city X to city
Y get out of their company A vehicle and step into a company B one.
Rather less hassle than changing trains. In the case of electric
highways, though, if they're like the RUF system where you have to buy
an especially-designed car, you're stuffed. You can't use any electric
highway at all if it is not compatible with your car.
Kirston Henderson
>> Installing a small PRT system suffers from lack of destinations.
>
> If you need more destinations, just extend the network.
And I suppose that you are going to dig down your own deep pockets and
supply the billions of dollars to pay for it.
rob...@2getthere.eu
long as you realize it's not going to happen overnight, the world is
imperfect and does not accept all advantages (despite the fact that they
are obvious), and that evolution is easier to achieve than revolution.
Hence our focus is on implementing PRT as a feeder or local area transit
system now, expanding it when it has proven succesful...
R.
Kirston Henderson schreef:
Bruce Attah
On Aug 20, 4:16 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:
>
> >> Installing a small PRT system suffers from lack of destinations.
>
> > If you need more destinations, just extend the network.
>
> And I suppose that you are going to dig down your own deep pockets and
> supply the billions of dollars to pay for it.
Kirston Henderson
>>>> Installing a small PRT system suffers from lack of destinations.
>>
>>> If you need more destinations, just extend the network.
>>
>> And I suppose that you are going to dig down your own deep pockets and
>> supply the billions of dollars to pay for it.
>
> Why do you suppose it would cost any more than your megarail proposal?
We know what our systems cost and are not proposing to install our
systems into full PRT systems that serve everyone because the cost is simply
prohibitive for such installations. However, the cost of main lines with
dualmode vehicle features is less than the cost of the LRT and streetcar
systems being installed in many cities.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Bruce Attah
On Aug 20, 4:33 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:
>
> We know what our systems cost and are not proposing to install our
> systems into full PRT systems that serve everyone because the cost is simply
> prohibitive for such installations.
given length of route, PRT would cost the same as or less than
megarail. Probably substantially less, actually. The guideway would be
lighter, the stations smaller, and there'd be no need for big
locomotives to pull the 16 cars along.
Kirston Henderson
> For a given number of stations, a given number of passengers, and a
> given length of route, PRT would cost the same as or less than
> megarail. Probably substantially less, actually. The guideway would be
> lighter, the stations smaller, and there'd be no need for big
> locomotives to pull the 16 cars along.
Mr. Attah,
Please examine the entire MicroRail presentation at:
http://www.megarail.com/pdf/MCPCAL-2.pdf
Then, you may be able to make more informed comments regarding
MicroRail . You will find that MicroRail offers many transit options, the
dualmode car options being only two of several. Furthermore, each of our
cars are individually powered and no "big locomotives" are used. A separate
lead car with an operator is used only on early installations before full
system automation. There is no "pulling" of vehicles involved in any of our
systems.
As to you size comment, careful examination will show you that the
MicroRail guideway is really no larger than other PRT guideways.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
eph
intercity seems like an afterthought. Also, high speed capability can
make vehicles more expensive. Having a carrier/bogie system on an
electric highway means PRT vehicles can be designed for lower speeds.
If you spend all your capital implementing a city system, there may
not be any left for intercity.
Having incompatible systems with the "solution" of switching vehicles
defeats the door to door feature of PRT. If you go on a long trip,
you want your vehicle to be like your suitcase. That's another reason
to have DM vehicles - all your gear stays with you.
F.
Bruce Attah
On Aug 20, 5:30 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:
>
> Then, you may be able to make more informed comments regarding
> MicroRail . You will find that MicroRail offers many transit options, the
> dualmode car options being only two of several.
> Furthermore, each of our
> cars are individually powered and no "big locomotives" are used. A separate
> lead car with an operator is used only on early installations before full
> system automation. There is no "pulling" of vehicles involved in any of our
> systems.
read the conclusion that the function of the lead car apparently
included pulling the rest. However, the statement I made that does not
depend on the cost of a locomotive still stands: PRT would be as cheap
as or cheaper than megarail to move the same number of people the same
distances to the same number of stops. Saying "where are you going to
get the billions" makes no sense. Dual-mode is unlikely in any form
ever to be cheaper or simpler to operate than PRT.
> As to you size comment, careful examination will show you that the
> MicroRail guideway is really no larger than other PRT guideways.
added cost of giving dualmode capability to the vehicles. Therefore,
it must be supposed that though the MicroRail guideways would be no
more expensive than plain-old PRT, the vehicles would be.
Here's a quote from J. Edward Anderson's article, "Some Lessons from
the History of PRT" (1996):
<<"In 1960 William Alden, a graduate of the Harvard Business School,
invented a system of small electric vehicles that could be driven from
one's home to a guideway, then automatically on the guideway to a
destination. This was quite possibly the earliest dual-mode-system
proposal. Alden called his system staRRcar, and formed a company
called Alden Self-Transit Systems Corporation. Several years later it
was realized that the development of a dual-mode system would be more
difficult than a captive-vehicle PRT system, as a consequence of which
the emphasis was shifted to wheeled captive vehicles driven by
variable-speed hydraulic motors. Each vehicle had a seating capacity
of six persons. Full-scale testing of staRRcar began on a test track
in Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1968 and the system later won a
competition at Morgantown, which is discussed below.">>
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/history.htm
Seems to me, there's a lesson from history that MicroRail could learn.
Dualmode of that type is an unnecessary added expense/complication
which offers only marginal benefit.
gary
I can't get your "rash" analogy out of my mind. It's made me rethink
my own concept. I'm also wondering if there even a better one. A
rash will form discontinuous blotches a distance from the initial
origin. But I suspect PRT would always grow outward from the initial
line. Would this be more like the growth of a plant's root system?
Or?
gary
On Aug 17, 4:15 pm, Bruce Attah <bruce.at...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 11:19 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Cars will not be made obsolete by PRT, not for a long time anyway,
> > there's always the drive to the country or remote areas...
>
> Not 100% obsolete, no, but marginalized. Those trips to remote areas,
> what percent of trips are they? PRT could do away with 90-99% of car
> trips wherever it is built. When people have done modal split studies,
> they find PRT taking 30-50% ridership. That's what the first systems
> will achieve, which are sparse network systems, on a grid typically of
> 1 km mesh or more, and having a lowish operating speed. But those
> systems can be enhanced so they reach right into the places people
> want to go, and quicker. Then I expect the ridership would quickly
> rise to above 70%. Soon, you'd get lots of people who forgot how to
> drive, or never learned, or can still drive, but haven't bothered to
> replace their old car, which is gathering dust in the garage. Others,
> who have sold their car, will hire a car once or twice a year for a
> trip to the countryside.
>
> > So, the only distinction between DM and PRT in your eyes is the
> > guideway? Having to select cars based on preferences seems
> > impractical (depends on implementation I suppose).
>
> No, the distinction is that under PRT, the vehicles are completely
> under the control of the system all the time, and never leave the
> guideway while they are in operation. DM could be provided as an extra
> feature on top of PRT, but it would add costs, and would be of utility
> to few. Then there's the other sort of DM, which is just for cars,
> specially-made cars, and only automates long highway trips (example,
> RUF). In my opinion, that kind of DM has little chance of success. You
> have to persuade people to buy these particular cars rather than any
> other, and you can only do that after you've built the guideway, which
> stands idle until those cars get sold.
>
> > I think that to expect a sudden, spontaneous guideway network is
> > optimistic.
> I don't expect a sudden, spontaneous guideway network, I expect it to
> light rail will be built. Every place where it would have been built,
> PRT will be built instead. Bus services will be retired. At the same
> time, existing rail networks will begin gradually to disappear, as
> their rolling stock ages, unrenewed. Eventually, the track will be
> lifted, and the right-of-way reused by PRT. Highways will get a PRT
> lane. Then road traffic on the highways will decline by 40, 50, 60%
> and more.
>
Dennis Manning
transit authorites rather than in direct competition.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: <rob...@2getthere.eu>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:21 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
>
Kirston Henderson
> PRT would be as cheap as or cheaper than megarail to move the same number of
> people the same distances to the same number of stops. Saying "where are you
> going to get the billions" makes no sense. Dual-mode is unlikely in any form
> ever to be cheaper or simpler to operate than PRT.
MegaRail® is our larger, higher-speed (120-mph) intercity and 85-mph
commuter rail system than has capability to handle both people and people in
their cars. By the way, the car carriers can handle both full-size and the
smaller compact and even electric cars that can also be carried by the
smaller, in-city only MicroRail CarFerries .
>
> MicroRail is like PRT, but with the added cost of giving dualmode capability
> to the vehicles. Therefore, it must be supposed that though the MicroRail
> guideways would be no more expensive than plain-old PRT, the vehicles would
> be.
Added cost and complexity applies only to true dualmode vehicles and not
to the significantly lower-cost, guideway-captive people carrier and
CarFerry vehicles. A significant amount of additional complexity and cost
are involved in the true dualmode vehicles, but with reasonable production
quantities, that added cost would probably come down to within the range of
affordability to may purchasers. (Those cars would never need to wait for a
guideway-captive CarFerry and could thus prove attractive to a lot of
people. Only time and the marketplace will tell on that issue. Mr. Alden
was entirely correct in is conclusion that guidway-only vehicles would cost
less. However, we really don't yet know if the marketplace will accept a
more expensive dualmode car that shares the same guideway as
guideway-captive cars.)
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
gary
DM is one way. But wouldn't another be to piggyback the city-speed
PRT vehicles onto a faster "train" (for lack of a better word) for
travel between cities?
gary
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bruce Attah
On Aug 20, 5:57 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Most PRT systems I've seen proposed are designed for city speeds so
> intercity seems like an afterthought.
intercity speeds difficult. For instance, a Vectus-like system could
add intercity speeds simply by putting more powerful motors in certain
sections of track, and thereby accelerating the vehicles up to said
highway speeds.
> Also, high speed capability can
> make vehicles more expensive. Having a carrier/bogie system on an
> electric highway means PRT vehicles can be designed for lower speeds.
> If you spend all your capital implementing a city system, there may
> not be any left for intercity.
LRT. If you had a city network, you would be running a big business,
and running it at a profit. Therefore, you could raise money for an
intercity line the same way all other profitable big businesses raise
money.
> Having incompatible systems with the "solution" of switching vehicles
> defeats the door to door feature of PRT.
buses or any alternative existing form of public transport. The
hypothetical situation you describe is likely to be rare. Nearly all
trips would still be non-stop. Furthermore, the changeover from one
vehicle to another would be straightforward, and would take less than
a minute on average. By contrast changing modes in a system that uses
buses or trains takes much longer as a rule -- sometimes hours, in the
case of making intercity connections.
Anyway, the situation is the same *or worse* in the case of dualmode.
> If you go on a long trip,
> you want your vehicle to be like your suitcase.
> That's another reason
> to have DM vehicles - all your gear stays with you.
with the added feature of vehicles that can go off the guideway and
drive around town under human control, and the other is the electric
highway concept, which employs trucks or pallets or some other device
to carry or tow cars along a guideway. The first is (a) more expensive
than PRT, and more complicated for the operator to manage, and (b) is
subject to exactly the same problem if two mutually incompatible DM
networks meet as would be the case if two incompatible PRT networks
met -- and the solution would be exactly the same. The second type of
system is only of utility to car owners, and in many versions (e.g.,
RUF) only to owners of a special car designed specifically for that DM
system. If you own a RUF car, and you come to a TriTrack guideway, you
can't use it. Nor can you simply swap your RUF car for a TriTrack one.
Basically, you have to drive to your destination (if your vehicle has
sufficient range), or give up and go home.
Jerry Schneider
>Most PRT systems I've seen proposed are designed for city speeds so
>intercity seems like an afterthought. Also, high speed capability can
>make vehicles more expensive. Having a carrier/bogie system on an
>electric highway means PRT vehicles can be designed for lower speeds.
>
>If you spend all your capital implementing a city system, there may
>not be any left for intercity.
Choices, choices. The largest and most sever problems are intracity -
they should get
priority attention, IMHO.
Walter Brewer
However there are cases, sprawl/housing induced perhaps, where close to
intercity enters the act. San Diego, (again), has driven, (no pun), many
people to the outskirts up to 50 or so miles away because of home prices.
Thus they come barreling back toward, but not necessarily into the San Diego
Central area each day. This creates considerable congestionin in a zone10 to
15 miles out.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:13 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
>
Kirston Henderson
> Choices, choices. The largest and most sever problems are intracity -
> they should get
> priority attention, IMHO.
Jerry,
I don't know how it is in Oregon, but the most severe traffic problems
that I have observed stem from the local area commuter problem which
involves large numbers of people traveling to and from work from their
places of residence and work that are often in suburban areas rather than
within the cities. All that you have to do is to examine the traffic survey
data that has attempted to collect origin and destinations for commuters.
Large amounts of them only travel trough the cities on the freeways that
happen to have built following radial pattern from points in the cities.
Therefore, all of the city mass transit or PRT you could ever build would
ever solve the most critical problem.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Schneider
>Humbly I agree.
>
> However there are cases, sprawl/housing induced perhaps, where close to
>intercity enters the act. San Diego, (again), has driven, (no pun), many
>people to the outskirts up to 50 or so miles away because of home prices.
>Thus they come barreling back toward, but not necessarily into the San Diego
>Central area each day. This creates considerable congestionin in a zone10 to
>15 miles out.
Not uncommon, as the data for many metro areas show that
suburb-to-suburb travel is by far the dominant part
of the travel pattern - and part of the problem is that many major
existing facilities are designed
for radial travel to the historic downtowns (a minor and shrinking
proportion of the total travel market). But they
do present convergence problems for cross-town travel. I wonder if a
dualmode network that followed the
existing radial/concentric facility pattern would really be very
useful to the many of the suburb-to-suburb movements.
Of course, metro regions like San Diego that are not so old and round
have unique problems. And there are many other exceptions as well.
Kirston Henderson
Jerry,
The above is precisely the reason that all of those over-priced mass
transit systems being installed by large cities in the U.S. never manage to
produce any significant reduction in freeway traffic. They can't.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Schneider
And that is why I wonder of a new guideway system that emulates the existing
highway network (i.e. is largely radial to the
historic downtown) would be very useful to these heavy suburb-to-suburb
movements - at least in metro regions that are somewhat round with a central
historic downtown with skyscrapers.
Kirston Henderson
The above is precisely the reason that we have recently been proposing
short MegaRail® CarTrains for commuter rail applications.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Walter Brewer
And speaking of MegaRail, I'm about ready to say Uncle, but here is one
other observation that hopefully you have looked at.
Typical a So. CA freeway like I-15 carries about 10,000 cars/hr on five
lanes. A typical corresponding on-ramp flows about 700/hr into this mix. At
3570 veh/hr for MR, that 's equivalent of 1.78 freeway lanes. To handle that
share of on ramp vehicles instead of the 1.78 lanes, 83 loadings per hour
would be needed, and carried to a synchronized slot on the freeway/guideway.
Your one minute/loading sounds a bit tight.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:48 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
Bruce Attah
On Aug 20, 7:27 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:
>
> Therefore, all of the city mass transit or PRT you could ever build would
> ever solve the most critical problem.
Kirston Henderson
> Kirston,
> And speaking of MegaRail, I'm about ready to say Uncle, but here is one
> other observation that hopefully you have looked at.
> Typical a So. CA freeway like I-15 carries about 10,000 cars/hr on five
> lanes. A typical corresponding on-ramp flows about 700/hr into this mix. At
> 3570 veh/hr for MR, that 's equivalent of 1.78 freeway lanes. To handle that
> share of on ramp vehicles instead of the 1.78 lanes, 83 loadings per hour
> would be needed, and carried to a synchronized slot on the freeway/guideway.
> Your one minute/loading sounds a bit tight.
Walt,
Past studies have shown that a lot of vehicles are only going for short
distances on the freeway and would probably continue to use the freeways.
If we need to load and unload more cars in a particular area, we can add
loading and unloading stations to take care of the problem.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Walter Brewer
Exactly why HOV lanes result in a net reduction in total throughput.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
Kirston Henderson
> So you would be enticing more to use the already saturated freeway lanes?
Walt,
No. Installation of the MegaRail® lines with CarTrains take a lot of
cars off of the freeways. I simply said that those going for only very
short distances would probably continue to use the freeways. That, in no
way is enticing more people to use the freeways.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Walter Brewer
MR, and free up freeway space for the short trips.
Hire some people who have loaded car ferryboats rapidly!
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 5:31 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
Kirston Henderson
>
> OK. I guess you can expect more of those going longer distances would use
> MR, and free up freeway space for the short trips.
>
> Hire some people who have loaded car ferryboats rapidly!
Walt,
Examine the load/unload station diagram on page 11 of the chart
presentation at the following url:
http://www.megarail.com/pdf/GN-CR5.pdf
You will note that the loading of the CarFerries occurs in parallel
rather than in series as is common on ferryboats. In our case, it is about
like a bunch of people parked in angle parking spaces simply moving forward
a little over one car length when the green light goes on and the stop
barrier lifts.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Schneider
>OK. I guess you can expect more of those going longer distances would use
>MR, and free up freeway space for the short trips.
>
>Hire some people who have loaded car ferryboats rapidly!
In Seattle, drivers load themselves but are directed to right or left
lanes by a person to get a balanced load.
I'm sure that the Washington State Ferry System would have some stats
as to how long it takes
to load x cars - most of which have to sit in a queue for quite a
long time, waiting for the ferryboat
to arrive and discharge its load.
There are usually quite a few walk-ons, bicycles and sometimes large
trucks in the mix.
gary
complexity scares me. Just for fun, a couple of quotes on the
subject...
"Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It
takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the
opposite direction."
--Albert Einstein
"Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability."
--Edsger W. Dijkstra 1930-2002, Dutch Computer Scientist
Dave Petrie
a freeway-compatible EV microcar, 8' long so it can be transported with the
driver looking westward while traveling north. Stations are above the
freeway so as to provide a dedicated guideway via a different (HVO) use of
the HOV lane.
Once cars have been staged by remote control to the loading platform, the
unload/load cycle takes 20-seconds, from Stop to Start.
The design of the autoloader mechanism will probably be via pallets (think
pizza), totally automatic from the time the microcar first enters the
staging area (about the size of a football field), time involved ~90
seconds.
For the maglev (Japanese HSST 200*), average speed is 150-kmh. The truck,
whether a double-deck rubber-tired, or maglev, is 98' long, carrying 32
cars.
Energy cost/mile while transported on maglev is $0.012/km, based on
7-cents/KWH (industrial rate) delivered at 7500 volts to the facility.
The throughput when fully automated can approach 40,000 cars/hour each
direction.
* Based on a simulation done by HSST engineering for me after I visited the
Nagoya test facility in 1996.
eph
higher speeds means safety issues must be considered, crash
worthiness, avoidance sensors, reaction times and headways. Some
systems are battery powered, so getting higher speed and distance
becomes problematic. I agree these problems aren't insurmountable,
but it isn't "simple" or cheap.
Profitability of PRT networks hasn't been proved since none exist
yet, I know many believe the profits from a working system will start
an exponential growth, but we can't predict the outcome.
True, PRT is better than buses, but we want to get a market share from
automobile traffic. Public transit's modal share is small.
I don't know if you've seen how much "stuff" a car can haul. It would
have to be a very large suitcase.
True, the PRT systems accessing the Electric Highway don't have to be
compatible, but if you have an EH going from city A to city B, chances
are both cities will get compatible systems. On the other hand, if
PRT systems are implemented by city A and city B with no intercity
connection in mind, chances are they won't be compatible.
If you have a palleted system (EH) and a PRT system like ULTra or
2getThere which are low speed electric road vehicle based, you have a
PRT system that can employ the EH for extended range. You have an
Electric Vehicle range extender and recharger, and you have an
automated cargo system as a bonus.
F.
eph
2 smaller problems. Instead of creating a complex vehicle capable of
both low speed city efficiency and high speed capability, we have a
purpose built palleted Electric Highway (with car ferry and cargo
capability) and a low speed city PRT system. I can see MegaRail
evolving a bit into the EH and ULTra or 2getThere as the PRT system.
F.
Jerry Schneider
>It's not as simple as just faster motors. To get a PRT system to
>higher speeds means safety issues must be considered, crash
>worthiness, avoidance sensors, reaction times and headways. Some
>systems are battery powered, so getting higher speed and distance
>becomes problematic. I agree these problems aren't insurmountable,
>but it isn't "simple" or cheap.
And alignment (i.e. curves, turning radius), acceleration/deceleration guideway
requirement, station berths, etc.
>Profitability of PRT networks hasn't been proved since none exist
>yet, I know many believe the profits from a working system will start
>an exponential growth, but we can't predict the outcome.
A lot will depend on the fares and the competition and the various labor
and materials costs and availability, at some time in the future
>True, PRT is better than buses, but we want to get a market share from
>automobile traffic. Public transit's modal share is small.
>
>I don't know if you've seen how much "stuff" a car can haul. It would
>have to be a very large suitcase.
>
>True, the PRT systems accessing the Electric Highway don't have to be
>compatible, but if you have an EH going from city A to city B, chances
>are both cities will get compatible systems. On the other hand, if
>PRT systems are implemented by city A and city B with no intercity
>connection in mind, chances are they won't be compatible.
>
>If you have a palleted system (EH) and a PRT system like ULTra or
>2getThere which are low speed electric road vehicle based, you have a
>PRT system that can employ the EH for extended range. You have an
>Electric Vehicle range extender and recharger, and you have an
>automated cargo system as a bonus.
I would expect both 2getthere and ULtra to evolve over time as market
opportunities
are perceived and technological developments warrant. Certainly,
autos are going
to evolve rather fast.
Dennis Manning
element in your talk of CarBus. You keep talking in statistical terms. Why
is that? If you can't solve, or should I say overcome, the politics you have
nothing.
I'm not a dunce on the tech issues. They are important. I'm an old highway
engineer, but I am a realtive neophyte in the politcial arena which I
struggle to overcome. I really wish that all PRT supporters would look more
at the primary political issues. I know that's not easy if our backgounds
are techincal, but that's where the battle lies.
Dennis
Bruce Attah
> At 07:18 PM 8/20/2008, you wrote:
>
> >It's not as simple as just faster motors. To get a PRT system to
> >higher speeds means safety issues must be considered, crash
> >worthiness, avoidance sensors, reaction times and headways. Some
> >systems are battery powered, so getting higher speed and distance
> >becomes problematic. I agree these problems aren't insurmountable,
> >but it isn't "simple" or cheap.
PRT is required. Crash worthiness is a simple matter of borrowing from
the car industry. The sensors are basically the same as for 60 km/h
operation, and reaction times will not be much different. Headways
will increase proportionately at the higher speeds, but stronger
brakes will ensure this is not excessive. Obviously, no systems will
doing high speed and long distance on battery power.
> And alignment (i.e. curves, turning radius), acceleration/deceleration guideway
> requirement, station berths, etc.
that replaces a commuter rail line or a highway, sorting out all these
details would take up a tiny fraction of the system budget. The one
factor that may affect the budget is guideway strength -- particularly
if the guideway is to be elevated along most of the route.
None of the issues you raise are even close to being showstoppers.
They're not even major hurdles.
> >Profitability of PRT networks hasn't been proved since none exist
> >yet, I know many believe the profits from a working system will start
> >an exponential growth, but we can't predict the outcome.
>
> A lot will depend on the fares and the competition and the various labor
> and materials costs and availability, at some time in the future
would not have to undercut them in order to gain ridership -- indeed,
mode share models consistently return a mode share of 25-50%, far, far
higher than buses or trains achieve almost anywhere. Yet PRT is,
according to several independent studies, likely to be profitable even
if it undercuts typical train ticket prices by a considerable margin.
Capacity is a non-issue. With a PRT line costing the same as or less
than a single lane of highway, and using half as much land (if that),
while having at least twice the capacity at the same speed, it is
plain that PRT can take all comers head-on, and win (on price,
service, and capacity).
In other words, PRT would wipe the floor with the competition.
> >True, PRT is better than buses, but we want to get a market share from
> >automobile traffic. Public transit's modal share is small.
>
> >I don't know if you've seen how much "stuff" a car can haul. It would
> >have to be a very large suitcase.
minivan. Obviously, a PRT vehicle can also function as a minivan.
Where you might be wanting to claim an advantage to the car is the
situation where you store some stuff in the car, and park it somewhere
while doing the rounds of the shops (christmas shopping, perhaps), the
offices (travelling salesman, perhaps), or something like that. You
would probably assume that PRT can't offer that service. But it can,
of course. You would pay for exclusive use of the vehicle for a
duration, and pay for the vehicle to be parked in a bay for whatever
portion of the duration you require. To offer this potentially
lucrative service, the PRT network operator would only need a small
percentage of extra vehicles and parking bays.
Walter Brewer
It is slowly sinking into my thick scull that the long/short trip
distribution doesn't matter in things such as loading time. They are the
same long or short. And very fast. Yes I understand how the loading takes
place in close to parallel.
Regarding elevated guideways in a previous post. Indeed currently surface
freeways are designed for trucks. But systems such as MR are good reason for
changing the rules for elevated, and put trucks below. There are several
studies going on to separate trucks anyway.
Or I could rephrase your statement and ask how will MR provide the truck
capacity needed for the lanespace it uses?
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 6:13 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Electric Highway
Kirston Henderson
> Kirston,
> It is slowly sinking into my thick scull that the long/short trip
> distribution doesn't matter in things such as loading time. They are the
> same long or short. And very fast. Yes I understand how the loading takes
> place in close to parallel.
>
> Regarding elevated guideways in a previous post. Indeed currently surface
> freeways are designed for trucks. But systems such as MR are good reason for
> changing the rules for elevated, and put trucks below. There are several
> studies going on to separate trucks anyway.
>
> Or I could rephrase your statement and ask how will MR provide the truck
> capacity needed for the lanespace it uses?
Walt,
MegaRail® provides a cargo carrier capability that runs at 120-mph,
intermixed with other traffic on the same set of elevated guideway. It
actually should eventually take all but local trucks off of the roads
because it will offer a faster and lower cost means of goods shipment.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®