What systems can best serve the MegaRegions?
Jerry Schneider
http://www.america2050.org/pdf/America2050prospectus.pdf
Descriptions of several US MegaRegions are provided in this document.
This group is giving them quite a lot of visibility.
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Jerry Roane
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
Jerry Schneider
>Jerry
>
>These guys need to get a shrink. They suffer from chronic
>depression. There are answers to all these issues but as long as
>they are depressed like this and in control of policy then nothing
>good can happen to bring transportation around to what is wanted or
>required. Responding to this depressed dream/nightmare would be
>quite a long paper. If your mega-region gets too big won't you just
>start a new one in the parts of the map where people are leaving
>like the entire middle of the continent?
The only answers that they seem to be excited about (not depressed
about) are conventional HSR solutions at this time. I expected you to
be excited about serving some of the needs of megaregions with
TriTrack. Step One would be trying to persuade them that you have a
better solution. If SkyTran ever gets up and running, maybe their
skilled marketing fellow will make the sale. Or maybe MegaRail will
get the business. It would be helpful if you had a skilled marketing
person on your "team" to take on the communication task.
>Using high speed and extra efficient transportation we can support
>both the mega-regions and supply fresh water to the desert
>locations. The mouth of the Mississippi River dumps more fresh
>water than the nation uses so non-salt water has never been the
>issue. The issue is water transportation either in rivers, canals,
>pipelines or rolling efficiently on guideway.
Water is certainly an issue of growing concern. It's not the only
issue, by far.
Jerry Roane
Jerry Schneider
>Jerry
>
>job. Their expertise is sales and marketing to the very level of
>government that would decide mega-region transportation. By day I
>design their product line but eventually if all goes well they would
>transition to TriTrack marketing and TriTrack promotion. They are
>very good at that task and are very high end men and women. I
>cannot afford to pay the required salaries so I have to get extreme
>talent and beg free stuff from them. Once sales take off the
>transition would be relative to business segment domination.
I would not worry to much about selling the government at this time.
I think it would be better to get some support from
groups like America2050 and several others such organizations - they
could be most helpful in eventually persuading government to provide
some encouragement and maybe support. Remember, given the current
situation, unless your system gets specified in an adopted
metropolitan plan (getting on the list of projects to be built), you
would have to go the private sector route which I think would be far
more difficult.
>Water is a trump card. If the public perceives that there is no
>water for say Phoenix mega-region then it is a non-starter. If it
>can be shown how water of sufficient quality can be supplied by
>man-made means then perhaps the public opinion can change about how
>may humans can be accommodated and welcomed by that corridor. I
>agree water is usually a small factor but it does hold
>sway. Knowing what I know about water for electric power generation
>available water is a much bigger deal than you are assuming as the
>population expands through uncontrolled immigration. If population
>is held to birth rate then water scarcity is probably OK in the US
>for a while.
I didn't say water is a small factor (drinking and irrigation, in
particular) - just that it is not the ONLY factor. Are you expecting
a large deployment of coastal nuclear reactors to produce "man-made
fresh water" like what is being done in Israel? The fresh water
supply is also a function of climatic conditions and I don't think
we have a very good handle on what that future supply situation wrt
fresh water (e.g. 2050) will actually be like.
><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
Jerry Roane
At 10:28 AM 2/12/2012, you wrote:
Jerry
Great suggestion. I am presently working this angle with my day job. Their expertise is sales and marketing to the very level of government that would decide mega-region transportation. By day I design their product line but eventually if all goes well they would transition to TriTrack marketing and TriTrack promotion. They are very good at that task and are very high end men and women. I cannot afford to pay the required salaries so I have to get extreme talent and beg free stuff from them. Once sales take off the transition would be relative to business segment domination.
I would not worry to much about selling the government at this time. I think it would be better to get some support from
groups like America2050 and several others such organizations - they could be most helpful in eventually persuading government to provide some encouragement and maybe support. Remember, given the current situation, unless your system gets specified in an adopted metropolitan plan (getting on the list of projects to be built), you would have to go the private sector route which I think would be far more difficult.I didn't say water is a small factor (drinking and irrigation, in particular) - just that it is not the ONLY factor. Are you expecting a large deployment of coastal nuclear reactors to produce "man-made fresh water" like what is being done in Israel? The fresh water supply is also a function of climatic conditions and I don't think we have a very good handle on what that future supply situation wrt fresh water (e.g. 2050) will actually be like.
Water is a trump card. If the public perceives that there is no water for say Phoenix mega-region then it is a non-starter. If it can be shown how water of sufficient quality can be supplied by man-made means then perhaps the public opinion can change about how may humans can be accommodated and welcomed by that corridor. I agree water is usually a small factor but it does hold sway. Knowing what I know about water for electric power generation available water is a much bigger deal than you are assuming as the population expands through uncontrolled immigration. If population is held to birth rate then water scarcity is probably OK in the US for a while.
Jerry Roane
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Jerry Schneider <<mailto:j...@peak.org>jbs@peak.org> wrote:
At 07:15 AM 2/12/2012, you wrote:
Jerry
These guys need to get a shrink. They suffer from chronic depression. There are answers to all these issues but as long as they are depressed like this and in control of policy then nothing good can happen to bring transportation around to what is wanted or required. Responding to this depressed dream/nightmare would be quite a long paper. If your mega-region gets too big won't you just start a new one in the parts of the map where people are leaving like the entire middle of the continent?
The only answers that they seem to be excited about (not depressed about) are conventional HSR solutions at this time. I expected you to be excited about serving some of the needs of megaregions with TriTrack. Step One would be trying to persuade them that you have a better solution. If SkyTran ever gets up and running, maybe their skilled marketing fellow will make the sale. Or maybe MegaRail will get the business. It would be helpful if you had a skilled marketing person on your "team" to take on the communication task.
Using high speed and extra efficient transportation we can support both the mega-regions and supply fresh water to the desert locations. The mouth of the Mississippi River dumps more fresh water than the nation uses so non-salt water has never been the issue. The issue is water transportation either in rivers, canals, pipelines or rolling efficiently on guideway.
Water is certainly an issue of growing concern. It's not the only issue, by far.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to <mailto:transport-innovators@googlegroups.com>transport-innov...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Jerry Schneider
>Jerry
>
>I think you missed my Mississippi River reference. There is no need
>to produce fresh water. My point is there is plenty of fresh
>surface water in the US for the population for many years without
>touching fossil water. The mouth of the Mississippi River dumps
>more than we need into the Gulf of Mexico. The trick is the ability
>to move that water to where it is needed. That is where a vehicle
>that moves a ton of water with 2 hp at 68 mph comes in and the 2hp
>per car can be supplied with PV solar along the path of that water
>movement. The last thing the world needs is more nuclear dump
>materials. Dirty bomb is reason enough. Forget all other reasons
>nuclear is a poor choice like there is not enough fuel anyway. With
>200,000 years of being hot for 30 years of dwindling power, it seems
>like such a poor choice. Are your grandkid's grandkids going to
>guard the radioactive junk for their entire lives?
Sorry, I took your literally when you referred to "man-made fresh
water". Isn't the Mississippi River water quite dirty and would
need substantial treatment before it could be used safely for
drinking, irrigation and other purposes where human health is involved?
---------------------------------
><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
><<http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to
><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
>
>- Jerry Schneider -
> Innovative Transportation Technologies
>
><http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to
><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
eph
http://www.slideshare.net/ralphyew/high-speed-rail-in-modern-cities-by-uic
F.
kirston henderson
> Is MegaRail up to the challenge?
>
> http://www.america2050.org/pdf/America2050prospectus.pdf
> Descriptions of several US MegaRegions are provided in this document.
> This group is giving them quite a lot of visibility.
>
Jerry,
The answer is very clearly YES on all counts, but we aren't interested
in any U.S. Federal involvement which it would appear to be the dreams of
these urban planners and advocates of the federal government should become
the great planner of private land use. Our intent is to sell to states and
cities or private groups interested in investing in money-making
transportation systems.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
Jerry Schneider
Sounds like a NO to me.
kirston henderson
Its a big, firm NO to the federal govt.
Richard Gronning
On the other hand, with a proven system, meaning one already in
operation, they just might be desperate enough to come calling.
Dick
Jerry Schneider
>Maybe they'll beg..(??) (Just kidding.)
>On the other hand, with a proven system, meaning one already in
>operation, they just might be desperate enough to come calling.
How many Metropolitan Planning Organizations are there in the U.S.?
Which cities are not included in some MPO? Which states can ignore
the adopted transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Plans
(TIPS) produced and approved by MPO's and do whatever they want to do
with no MPO input or approval? My guess is that the urban clients
which have the DESIRE, NEED and MONEY to build big transportation
projects are covered by MPO plans, rules and regulations.
Jerry Schneider
>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:43:41 -0800
>To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>Subject: Re: [t-i] What systems can best serve the MegaRegions?
>
>At 02:15 PM 2/13/2012, you wrote:
>>Maybe they'll beg..(??) (Just kidding.)
>>On the other hand, with a proven system, meaning one already in
>>operation, they just might be desperate enough to come calling.
>
>How many Metropolitan Planning Organizations are there in the U.S.?
>Which cities are not included in some MPO? Which states can ignore
>the adopted transportation plans and Transportation Improvement
>Plans (TIPS) produced and approved by MPO's and do whatever they
>want to do with no MPO input or approval? My guess is that the urban
>clients which have the DESIRE, NEED and MONEY to build big
>transportation projects are covered by MPO plans, rules and regulations.
Here is a list of all the MPOs in the US. Too many to count, but I do
see 24 in Texas. Is MegaRail's market limited to the uncovered parts
of the country? If so, I wonder if "uncovered" have the DESIRE, NEED
and MONEY to be good prospects?
http://www.ampo.org/directory/index.php
Kirston Henderson
On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:
> At 02:15 PM 2/13/2012, you wrote:
>> Maybe they'll beg..(??) (Just kidding.)
>> On the other hand, with a proven system, meaning one already in
>> operation, they just might be desperate enough to come calling.
>
> How many Metropolitan Planning Organizations are there in the U.S.?
> Which cities are not included in some MPO? Which states can ignore
> the adopted transportation plans and Transportation Improvement
> Plans (TIPS) produced and approved by MPO's and do whatever they
> want to do with no MPO input or approval? My guess is that the urban
> clients which have the DESIRE, NEED and MONEY to build big
> transportation projects are covered by MPO plans, rules and
> regulations.
They are not as long as they can purchase systems without using
federal funds. That leaves us a good opening because we can generally
provide systems for less than city share of paying for the expensive
federal approved transport projects.
Kirston Henderson
Kirston Henderson
Some of those smaller cities are excellent prospects for our systems
and we have had discussions with some of them and the interest is
there in some of them.
Kirston Henderson
Dennis Manning
it does not have to be part of the federally required Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP). However, it's hard to imagine a significant
project that does not require at least some local spending. Do you get into
trouble taking local funds from RTPs?
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:09 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] What systems can best serve the MegaRegions?
>
kirston henderson
> As I understand it in theory if a transportation project is privately funded
> it does not have to be part of the federally required Regional
> Transportation Plan (RTP). However, it's hard to imagine a significant
> project that does not require at least some local spending. Do you get into
> trouble taking local funds from RTPs?
>
States, cities and counties can spend their own tax funds to build any
type of road or transportation system that they choose to build without any
approval from RTPs as long as they don't ask for federal funds. In most
states, there are also no requirements for any sort of environmental impact
studies as these are mandated only for expenditure of federal funds. (Some
states such as California have their own environmental impact study
requirements. Federal EIS requirements are also imposed for building on
interstate highway right of way (according to TXDOT) or federally owned
land.
Richard Gronning
- If a proven system can be built with at least some private
funding, MPO plans can be rewritten and barriers will fall. Why
would MnDOT hold 2 conferences on PRT if plans were set in
granite? The Minneapolis - St. Paul Met council has stated that
if a new system can be built with private funds, they won't
stand in the way. Of course, that would go against the MPO
plans. Build it and they will come.
- MPO planning will have to be incorporated, if for no other reason, for ROWs. If there is a chance for neutral or even a profitable system and private investment is available, then the dictates that are feared will also fall.
Dick
Jerry Schneider
>Pardon me for disagreeing with both of you.
> would MnDOT hold 2 conferences on PRT if plans were set in granite?
> The Minneapolis - St. Paul Met council has stated that if a new
> system can be built with private funds, they won't stand in the
> way. Of course, that would go against the MPO plans. Build it and
> they will come.
How to assess this statement about "standing in the way". The Met
Council has a Transportation Improvement Program that includes a
multi-year list of projects that they have approved. The people who
have been "promised" these actions are eagerly awaiting action on
their project. If a privately funded project comes along that
conflicts with any of the projects on the list, what will the
proponents of those projects do? The Met Council may not stand in the
way in public, but there are other ways to defend turf and they, and
the advocates of other affected projects, could cause quite a lot of
trouble behind the scenes. Is a power struggle is likely? Hard to
predict in advance. My impression is that the Met Council's ability
to defend their turf (a well analyzed and approved program of
transport investments) is quite significant. Of course, there may not
be any conflict with their TIP and then there would not need to be a
power struggle.
> * MPO planning will have to be incorporated, if for no other
> reason, for ROWs. If there is a chance for neutral or even a
> profitable system and private investment is available, then the
> dictates that are feared will also fall.
Before the Met Council could "incorporate" a private venture, it
would probably have to be examined quite extensively by them. ROW
problems could be a significant barrier. Why use the term "dictates"
to describe a TIP that has been devised
by a public body that generally is quite transparent, run by elected
officials, is updated and approved annually? And, what is a "neutral"
system - one that breaks even?
>Dick
>
>On 2/14/2012 12:09 AM, Kirston Henderson wrote:
>>
>>On Feb 13, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:
>>
>>>At 02:15 PM 2/13/2012, you wrote:
>>>>Maybe they'll beg..(??) (Just kidding.)
>>>>On the other hand, with a proven system, meaning one already in
>>>>operation, they just might be desperate enough to come calling.
>>>
>>>How many Metropolitan Planning Organizations are there in the
>>>U.S.? Which cities are not included in some MPO? Which states can
>>>ignore the adopted transportation plans and Transportation
>>>Improvement Plans (TIPS) produced and approved by MPO's and do
>>>whatever they want to do with no MPO input or approval? My guess
>>>is that the urban clients which have the DESIRE, NEED and MONEY to
>>>build big transportation projects are covered by MPO plans, rules
>>>and regulations.
>>
>> They are not as long as they can purchase systems without
>> using federal funds. That leaves us a good opening because we can
>> generally provide systems for less than city share of paying for
>> the expensive federal approved transport projects.
>>
>>Kirston Henderson
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
Jerry Roane
Richard Gronning
benefit the Metro area and, therefore, certain Met. Council members and
their standing with their constituents. And, when have "promises" ever
been considered written in granite when politics are concerned? Your
point about, "...not stand in the way in public.." is a point well made.
If such a project and such funds appear, we'll see what kind of power
struggle emerges. I think that the area and the beneficiaries would play
an important role.
>
>> * MPO planning will have to be incorporated, if for no other
>> reason, for ROWs. If there is a chance for neutral or even a
>> profitable system and private investment is available, then the
>> dictates that are feared will also fall.
>
> Before the Met Council could "incorporate" a private venture, it would
> probably have to be examined quite extensively by them. ROW problems
> could be a significant barrier. Why use the term "dictates" to
> describe a TIP that has been devised
> by a public body that generally is quite transparent, run by elected
> officials, is updated and approved annually? And, what is a "neutral"
> system - one that breaks even?
You would be right about ROWs, only if they had a say in the ROWs.
Skyweb's project at shopping malls was outside the Met Council's area,
had very little ROW to be approved of, and could be developed mostly on
land owned by the shopping mall owners. (One example.) If a system were
proposed that could increase the LRT and/or bus ridership and cost a
fraction of either, perhaps with some private $$$ invested, perhaps
plans and barriers would fall. (another example.)
Dick
kirston henderson
Pardon me for disagreeing with both of you.
Dick
- If a proven system can be built with at least some private funding, MPO plans can be rewritten and barriers will fall. Why would MnDOT hold 2 conferences on PRT if plans were set in granite? The Minneapolis - St. Paul Met council has stated that if a new system can be built with private funds, they won't stand in the way. Of course, that would go against the MPO plans. Build it and they will come.
- MPO planning will have to be incorporated, if for no other reason, for ROWs. If there is a chance for neutral or even a profitable system and private investment is available, then the dictates that are feared will also fall.
I can assure you that in the areas that I have checked, local cities, counties, etc. can build anything that they want without consulting such organizations and do an a regular basis. As for right of ways, cities and counties must become involved in making right of ways available, generally over streets and roads that they own. MPOs have no say in such matters.
Richard Gronning
We'll obviously see, down the road, what will happen. Amendments to plans are possible, ploys to make unpopular items not happen are certainly possible, and vision doesn't seem to be there.
I posted a Dr. Mercola blurb that had some "60 Minute TV" presentations on how congress, both sides of the arena, could and did insider trading. You delayed it. Perhaps you saw that congress passed a bill prohibiting insider trading now.
http://www.depauliaonline.com/mobile/nation-world/congress-bans-members-from-insider-trading-1.2775744
No sooner had congress passed this bill, than an opposition to it emerged. See,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/politics/ban-on-insider-trading-by-congress-faces-gop-revisions-in-house.html
That the bill was passed by a congress against its own benefit should give some hope. The MnDOT effort shows that, when allowed, elements of the government can examine innovative technology. Perhaps the best advice is, Don't hold your breath.
Dick
Rob Means
From: Rob Means <rob....@electric-bikes.com>
To: Greg Armendariz <garme...@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>
Cc: jspuller <jspu...@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>, Peter (Primo) McHugh <pmc...@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>, Tom Williams <twil...@ci.milpitas.ca.gov>
Subject: How do we proceed with the PRT crossing of the RR tracks?
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:26:56 -0800
Greg,
In a phone conversation with Janice this morning, she said that no projects can be added to RTP 2040 at this time. According to her VTA contact, we must await the next input round for RTP 2045.
Frankly, in fast-changing times like these, such a procedural delay seems unwise to me. By my calculation, it will be 6 years before a PRT project in Milpitas will be considered for MTC/VTA funding. I say 6 years because the projects submitted by the City last year will not be approved for funding until January of next year. So, even if we submit a project for the next round in 2016, it won't be approved until early 2018. That is a long time to correct a mistake.
Assuming that I understand the process correctly, is there really no way to accelerate the process? At the City level, there are provisions for emergency/urgency measures. Is there no similar option at the VTA/MTC level?
Also, our previous Traffic Engineer seems to have sabotaged the project to cross the railroad tracks. I say this because the crossing used to be listed in the Midtown Specific Plan, Bikeway Master Plan and VTP's Countywide Bicycle Plan. (See note below.) Although still in the Trails Master Plan, all references have been deleted from the three documents updated during the time our previous Traffic Engineer was employed with the City. Removal from the Bikeway Master Plan was particularly egregious because, in reviewing the draft in 2009, every member of the BPAC requested that the overcrossing be included.
What can you do to help get this project back on track?
-- Rob Means ATRA Legislative Advisor www.advancedtransit.org rob....@electric-bikes.com 408-262-8975 work, 408-230-2585 cell 1421 Yellowstone Ave., Milpitas, CA 95035 |
Jerry Schneider
Good point. I would guess that some work would be required to
interface the PRT system with the nearby rail and/or bus facilities -
perhaps not a major construction project but the issue would be who
pays for it. If it's the private company, then it might be easily
done. If not, a bit more difficult.
>Dick