Trouble for PRT in Fresno?

[Jerry Schneider]

<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/1700706.html&ct=ga&cd=EP246IhfpY8&usg=AFQjCNETnXmYuoXzcnfuF3KSBIaMY7DCQg>Measure
C funds may be diverted to bring rail yard
Fresno Bee - Fresno,CA,USA
... a $37 million fund reserved for "new technologies such as
personal rapid transit or similar system." That drew sharp reactions
from some at the meeting. ...

[Dennis Manning]

Yes, Fresno's $37m in PRT funds are in some jeopardy. However, it will take
about 2 years for this to be settled as that's about how long it will take
for the California High Speed Rail Authority to determine if the maintenace
facility will be located in Fresno. The time is needed for environmetal
studies of the various options. In the meantime other sources of funds for
the maintenance station are under review.

It's a political hot potato to redirect projects/funds as passed by the
voters. There's going to be a lot of debate over the issue.

Dennis

[Michael Weidler]

Then there are idiots like this fellow: http://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/wo/story/1632790.html?storylink=mirelated I wonder how many of those 15% unemployed are (or even can be) qualified to work at the HSR yard? --- On Fri, 11/6/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: [t-i] Trouble for PRT in Fresno?

[Dennis Manning]

Michael:

 

You hit that one right. Supervisor Perea is the fellow who in an open meeting said to me, "I don't care about PRT. I don't want know about PRT". The other Supervisor Susan Anderson was the main opponent of establishing PRT funds in the first place. Notice that the op-ed piece was dated in September.  After promising an open transparent process they quickly hand picked a "committee" without consulting anyone. It's that "committee" that has now come forward seeking $40m to sweeten Fresno's high speed rail station bid. The $40m figure was pulled out of thin air. The 2 people most knowledgeable about about high speed rail in Fresno were not invited to be on  the "committee". Many of those who are on the "committee" don't know a thing about it. 

 

Sup Perea is the main backer of a $60m 2 mile trolley line on a route with guaranteed low ridership. It will help revitalize our downtown he says.

 

You are also right that few of Fresno's unemployed could fill the type of jobs the station would need.

 

Dennis

 

 

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

From: Michael Weidler

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Richard Gronning]

Hi Dennis,
As you mention, PRT has its enemies. Where many people on this site have
dedicated themselves to building the PRT systems, DM & SM, that will
make PRT a reality, your roll as an organizer in Fresno is far more
integral than any one might imagine. Of course, I know how many years
that you have spent in getting funds allocated for a PRT project. Some
on the list spurn any public investment. I wonder if they realize that
even if no money from taxes, allocated by some government institution,
to be available, that some public officials have to be in favor of PRT,
or it isn't going to be installed.

Once again I see that careful work and proper timing will (probably)
stave off the pirates. They (probably) won't go away either. Let's hope
and pray that PRT will become enough of a reality in the next couple of
years so that the allure of piracy will look like a grim choice.
Dick

[Dennis Manning]

Dick:

Quite a lot of things can happen or not happen over two years. It's possible
the HSR could stall or be abandoned altogether. Fresno may not be the site
chosen for the maintenance station. In 2 years we may know if the San Jose
PRT is a go. We may get the news of more PRT systems around the globe
getting the green light. Sweden is promising.

One thing many on this list don't appreciate is how long the process takes
in most cities even if everything goes well for a PRT development. LRT
projects being in the pipeline for 10 years and longer is typical. Take San
Jose. They are more or less fast tracking the process, but it will take at
least 2 more years and probably more to get to the green light point. I've
been at it for 7 years to get to the point where consultants are now
studying PRT and the results will take another year. The results will not be
sufficient to make a decision so there will be more studies. On the other
hand it has pretty much moved along a positive course.

Dennis


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Gronning" <rgro...@gofast.am>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 7:47 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Trouble for PRT in Fresno?


>

[Walter Brewer]

I agree with this and Richards comments. It took many yers to turn around
the Battleship Admirals. (And it wasn't just because battleships have lots
of inertia!)

Speaking of Pilot Richard: There was a recent post about robo cars and the
degree to which there would be hands off trust in complete automation.
A comment at the end pointed out completely automated landings for aircraft
are possible, and indeed many airline and military aircraft have such
capability.
Question for Richard, and or others, what percent of actual in service
landings of those aircraft are completely automatic? Pilot monitored
readiness of course, I hope, but no take over.

Walt Brewer

[Richard Gronning]

Hi Walt,
I don't know which aircraft (AC) first had the capability of auto-land. Maybe it was the B-747 at the end of the '60s. When I flew it, there was a criteria that at least one landing a month had to be made in order to keep up the experience. I don't think that this was met very often. There were 3 autopilots and all of them had to be working and all of them had to be connected in order to auto-land. In visual weather Air Traffic Control (ATC), specifically approach control, wanted to land aircraft as quickly as possible and so they would direct a flight very close to the runway before releasing the flight to the tower for landing. There just wasn't enough time or space to allow auto-land. We couldn't use it with cross-winds over 10 kts. It couldn't be used with even moderate turbulence.

All modern commercial AC since that time have auto-land capability. The capability has only gotten better. Right now a pilot can auto-land with visibility measured in 3 places at 600',600' and zero'. That's about half the required visibility for a take-off. A pilot won't see the runway until after the AC touches down. It's a good question, "what percent of actual in service landings of those aircraft are completely automatic?" I'd say that it would depend on the pilot, but no more than 15 to 20% each month. The requirement for pilots to maintain currency in auto-land is still there.

The, "Pilot monitored readiness" is, of course, necessary and important. Who is going to monitor the "landings," (station arrivals) of the first PRT systems? How is it going to be done? Obviously, it's going to be done from a remote facility. Nowadays we have AC that can be piloted from remote facilities, fly half way around the world on a mission, and return and land. From what I've seen with RC models, I wonder if such a system would ever be certified for landing with passengers or even cargo. With current technology in auto-land modes it is possible. The next question is, "would you trust a pilot not on your AC and in some facility, maybe in China?" How about PRT?

Now, take these situations and questions and apply them to automated highways. If you were driving along in the non-automated portion of the freeway/tollway and saw a person in the left front seat (OK, North America) and playing cards and drinking a beer, would you trust this situation?
Dick

[Dennis Manning]

Dick:

 

Taking this off line as the others aren't likely to be interested in the details.

 

I have several tricks up my sleeve to thwart this PRT money grab. Since the station site won't be awarded for 2 years no money will change hands until then. The High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) doesn't care where Fresno gets the $40m or whatever amount it turns out to be.  That means there will be two years of searching around for the funds. One very likely source is the $100m pot earmarked for rail consolidation (RC). In only a few months the RC project may be dead because final HSR alignment choice would block that option. Another funding option that might be chosen, although a long shot, would be to shave 2% off all the transportation projects rather hit a single project like PRT. Still another is to find the money outside of transportation funds. Given current financial meltdown throughout the state. That's a very long shot, but the Mayor has asked that the possibility gets looked at.

 

One tricky aspect is that I've been working for the RC project in parallel with PRT. I've gotten to be very good friends with a fellow named Tom Bailey. We've been in the trenches on RC for 8 years. If it comes to whether the money is grabbed from the PRT pot or the RC pot Tom is solidly in favor of getting it from PRT. He's basically an old railroad fan. He loves the high speed rail and the RC projects. He gets a scowl on his face if I mention maglev rather than the steel wheel high speed. So for the most part I keep my mouth shut about maglev.

 

The irony here is that his beloved high speed train is quite likely to kill his beloved rail consolidation project. It may not come to having to choose between the PRT pot and RC pot if the RC project is eliminated. 

 

At any rate the battle goes on.

 

Dennis

 

 

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

From: "Richard Gronning" <rgro...@gofast.am>

To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 7:47 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Trouble for PRT in Fresno?

>

[Walter Brewer]

Dennis,

 What is RC supposed to do, and who compares vaue of it vs others inc PRT.

RC doesn't sound very urban transportation oriented?

 

 Walt Brewer

[Walter Brewer]

Thanks. Indeed there is some non-technical info here relevant to automated ground transportation systems, and human interface.

It would be interesting to know in how many of the auto-land cases, intervention was necessary? Would pilots voluntary flight comments include such info?

Also uneasiness level of pilots during the landings.

There are smooth pilots, and jerky pilots, (and car drivers for that matter.) Smooth detect slight variations, and apply corrections in proportion smoothly. Jerky let things get off line considerably before making abrupt corrections. Assuming automated is not as smooth as a smooth pilot,but adequate for safe landing, the pilot reactions, and/or intervention might be different.

Could an experienced pilot riding in passenger area tell the difference?

 

Do you mean an auto-landed aircraft can operate in more poor visibility than a manual takeoff??!

 

Walt Brewer

 

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

From: Richard Gronning

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 12:52 PM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Trouble for PRT in Fresno?

[Dennis Manning]

Both UP and BNSF RRs run roughly parallel through the heart of the Fresno urban area about a mile apart. Originally the concept was to combine both RRs in the UP corridor and eliminate all at-grade crossings. The HSR alignment would usurp the the right of way needed to do the rail consolidation. Even though the  estimated price tag for RC is hefty at about $500m it's a good project. It would eliminate about 40 current at-grade crossings, open the BNSF corridor for as a possible green belt, move freight through Fresno at higher speed, and spare all the current horn honking. There are safety improvements, RR operation advantages, and much improved traffic flow.  

 

If you want to see more about the project see www.movethetracks.org The site hasn't been updated in quite awhile.

[Dennis Manning]

Dick should know, but I'll bet auto control is smoother than manual. Autopiliot would take corrective actions much more frequently much as ULTra steers more accurately than a car driver. 

[Richard Gronning]

Walt; if auto-land has been set up, there would be very few cases where
it would actually be canceled. Taking a check ride in a simulator is
another matter. On the line, if ATC tells you to go around, you do. If a
system warning comes on and/or there's an indication of a malfunction,
you discontinue the approach.

Uneasiness? Yes! Even if another pilot is landing. Even if you sit in
the back as a passenger.

Smooth & jerky, yes, but not necessarily like that. I've seen pilots
over-control like mad, but the effect comes off smooth. I think that it
is due to a lack of proper trim.

Can I tell the difference? Some times. Some times not. Weather and
turbulence can do the same thing.

Yes! With auto-land, an AC can land in conditions that wouldn't allow a
take-off. All take-offs are manual.

I've seen, felt, landings incredibly smooth done manually. Grease jobs!
I've felt hard landings with auto-land, but not all the time. A manual
landing can beat an auto-land in the majority of times.
Dick

[Walter Brewer]

Speaking of horn honking and related annoyance/warning. I

have heard there are directional horns that are installed at road crossings. Activated by trains. The loud direction is up and down the tracks, so neighborhod noise is reduced. I guess the distribution right at the crossing is adequate to warn drivers/pedestrians.

[Dave Petrie]

All Space Shuttle landings are automatic-essentially Hands Off. You should note the perfectly-greased landings, every time.

 

You may remember a televised landing ~15 years ago, where the manual pilot slammed the too-high nose onto the tarmac, almost breaking it. From that point on, the crew was ordered to always use autoland mode.

 

On heaving aircraft carrier decks, autoland always exceeds the capability-minimizing the differential velocity at touch-down- of the pilot, whatever the seas or winds are doing. 

[Walter Brewer]

Yes. Carriers are better examples with lots of experience.

Do you know if there are any instances of pilot decisions to take over manually in final seconds, or to abort because of known or suspected autoland defect?

 

And there is the extensive military autoland experience for UMV's.

Have UMV's landed on carriers?