Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Jerry Schneider
>Excellent TRB presentation by Sam Lott, a very experienced
>transportation consultant who offers copious advice on this highly
>important topic. Link provided at:
>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/whatsnew.htm
I'd be interested in comments on this presentation - there are
several barriers that deserve attention and provide a lot of fodder
for discussion. Is there anyone out there who has an interest in this topic?
What's been left out (if anything)? What kind of evolutionary
strategy might help to overcome some of these barriers? What are the
roles of test tracks and simulations? Are the available demand
forecasting models capable of producing decent patronage forecasts in
relation to competing, existing modes? What are the likely land use
impacts of PRT networks and station location strategies? Why do
streetcars appear to have "traction" while PRT is still in a holding
pattern? Is his framework of the various actors and stakeholders
adequate or could it be improved? And so on. No need to be bashful.
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Jack Slade
I am unable to get my PC operating properly, to navigate the whole site.
From what do see, he is probably right about a lot of conclusions, but some such "Bart and LRT serving whole areas whereas PRT only serves one District" for the same money, ( not exact wording) shows that he does not fully understand what he is talking about.
It might help if someboby like him joined this list and give us a chance to do a little convincing.
I also think he is right that progress will come when the people with money get in the game. My problem with this goes back to what Raytheon did to Dr Anderson's plan....the money person wants complete control, doesn't follow the plan because he is sure he is smarter, or knows better, and screws everything up.
I recommend that anybody Incorporating retain 51% control, or this may happen every time.
More later, when I get my PC fixed.
Jack Slade
|
|
Dennis Manning
quote:
"And let it be noted that there is no more delicate matter to take in hand,
nor more dangerous to conduct, nor more doubtful in its success, than to set
up as a leader in the introduction of changes. For he who innovates will
have for his enemies all those who are well off under the existing order of
things, and only the lukewarm supporters in those who might be better off
under the new. This lukewarm temper arises partly from the fear of
adversaries who have the laws on their side and partly from the incredulity
of mankind, who will never admit the merit of anything new, until experience
proves its value."
and lesser known one by John Maynard Keynes:
"The real difficulty in changing any enterprise lies not in developing new
ideas but in escaping from old one."
and one more for good measure. Henry Ford:
"If I ask my customers what they really wanted they would say a faster
horse."
So a thought or two. Sam went really easy on his fellow consultants as to
how they form a barrier. Sam can't escape his past 30 years working in APM
industry as is shown by clinging to GRT. Sam didn't include the ""Public"
as one of the stakeholders. I presume he hasn't had much experience in
ginning up public support for a new technology.
In Sam's defense he has shown more interest and sensitivity toward PRT than
the vast majority of his fellow consultants, and on that basis I welcome his
contribution.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 5:13 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
>
> --
> 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.
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.
kirston henderson
> Why do streetcars appear to have "traction" while PRT is still in a holding
> pattern? Is his framework of the various actors and stakeholders adequate or
> could it be improved? And so on. No need to be bashful.
>
Streetcar history goes all of the way back to the days of horse-drawn
streetcars and a lot of people simply can't get them our of their heards.
Kirston Henderson
Richard Gronning
riders if they put horses back as the pullers.
Dennis Manning
--------------------------------------------------
From: "kirston henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:55 AM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
The biggest difference is almost everyone knows what a street car is and as
recent posts have shown few know about PRT EVEN AMONG SO CALLED
TRANSPORTATION EXPERTS.
Street cars aren't faced with the chore (barrier) of educating the public.
The tightness of the box surrounding transit officials is amazing. They
don't know about PRT because their curiosity level is so low they don't even
inquire about anything outside the trolley box. Bus people are about the
same.
Dennis
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
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.
Nathan Koren
You hit a very good point - the education barrier. I've actually found
that educating the public is relatively easy: you tell them that PRT
is like a robotic taxi on an overhead guideway, show them some videos
of Heathrow etc., and they say "oh, cool!" and are thereafter more or
less on board with the concept. But that honestly doesn't matter very
much, because -- to put it bluntly -- the public is not involved in
the decision-making or implementation process for PRT systems. Since
"the public" doesn't buy, design, build, operate, or regulate PRT
systems, what they think has virtually no bearing on what actually
happens. So the real education barrier is with professionals --
developers, transport planners, land-use planners, regulatory bodies,
etc.
The problem is that professionals know enough to be dangerous. They
can see that the simple "robotic taxi on a guideway" story glosses
over a LOT of genuine complexity; they accurately perceive that PRT is
not trivial to get right. Sometimes their expertise leads them to
wholly fallacious conclusions ("a transport system cannot be ADA-
compliant unless there is a 5-foot-diameter turning circle of clear
floorspace"); other times their expertise helps them to identify a
real potential problem, without giving them any insight into the
solution. An example of the latter would be Vuchic's concept of the
"pulse" problem (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/vuchic1.htm)
-- which is an entirely legitimate concern, but one that can be
addressed through a combination of in-station or upstream vehicle
buffers, predictive caching of vehicles, and acceptance of the fact
that during extremely rapid pulses at an under-sized PRT station,
there may be a "long tail" of people who will have to wait a number of
minutes to get a ride (making the worst-case PRT wait similar to the
average-case bus wait, so what's the problem with that?).
Now, it's one thing for me to claim that there's a solution for the
pulse problem; it's an entirely different thing for a transport
professional to be able to verify this for themselves. It actually
requires a fairly advanced degree of simulation to see that yes, what
I'm saying is really true. So the transport professional is left with
the choice of either accepting my expertise on faith, or spending some
number of days/weeks/months creating simulations which prove this to
their own satisfaction. And after they've done that, there are still
several dozen other problems of a similar magnitude which they will
probably be able to see but not easily answer.
A lot of these problems are external to PRT itself, but deal with its
interactions with other systems. How do you do demand modelling for
PRT - fitting it into a classic four-stage logit modal split? How do
you estimate the mode-specific constant for this calculation? Sure,
there's a lot of literature out there to review, but once you've spent
some weeks assimilating that... How do you actually manage the
passenger-side pedestrian flows at big intermodal interchanges? (Hint:
classic bus-stop-class PRT stations don't work for that...). How do
you manage the architectural and structural interfaces between
stations and buildings etc.? And how for the love of Pete do you find
out how much the bloody thing even costs?!?
(This latter point is a huge problem, by the way: at the moment,
getting useful costing information out of vendors is like pulling
teeth. Having worked on the vendor side of the industry, I understand
why this is the case: they aren't yet selling a mass-produced off-the-
shelf product, but something that requires a significant amount of
customised design, tooling, and manufacturing for each application.
For a job like that, it'd be irresponsible to just pick numbers out of
thin air and quote them to a customer; therefore the vendors are being
appropriately diligent when they make sure that they fully understand
the context and customer requirements before quoting a price.
Nonetheless, from the client's point of view, this is a big problem.
When costing a bus or train system, the client or their consultants
can simply browse through the costs of thousands of prior
installations -- which are a matter of public record -- and make their
own determination about the probable costs in a matter of hours or
days. When performing an equivalent estimate of PRT costs, some weeks
or months of direct discussions with the vendors are required -- which
is a huge and often untenable commitment of time, energy, and money.)
So: for professionals -- the people who are actually part of the
decision-making process for implementing transport systems -- studying
PRT to the point that you can understand it comprehensively -- not
just the "what" and the "why" but also the exact "HOW" -- requires
months or years of commitment. Few professionals are mad enough to do
that; the light at the end of the tunnel does not seem sufficiently
compelling to warrant such an investment. And that's the real
education barrier, as I see it.
Can it be overcome? Is there some way to dramatically shorten the
learning curve for professionals? I believe that there is, and I'm now
focusing most of my efforts on developing a solution to this problem.
I hope to be able to announce something about this within a few
months...
Cheers,
Nathan
On Feb 3, 4:28 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "kirston henderson" <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
Jerry Roane
Nathan Koren
Yes, you're quite right -- I didn't mean to imply that a 5-foot
turning circle was an actual ADA requirement for all transport modes;
it's just that some consultants have mistakenly made that claim in the
past, most notoriously in the Cincinnati Skyloop study. Of course the
dial-a-ride services that currently cater to the mobility-impaired do
not have such turning space, and are perfectly fine under the ADA, as
any well-designed PRT system would also be.
Would rather not extend the remit of the ADA to require accommodation
of people on artificial respirators, however! It's challenging enough
to accommodate as is! (As a recovering architect, I can only shudder
to imagine how having an oxygen hookup in every room would coexist
with fire codes...)
Cheers,
Nathan
On Feb 4, 4:45 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan
>
> I want to make sure those who read your post don't close their minds to
> your important intent but take away the ADA word example as we cannot
> possibly meet ADA requirements. We can meet not only the ADA legal
Jerry Roane
Rob Means
We are all familiar with mass transit systems. Big vehicles with lots of people: trains, buses, light rail. PRT is small, personal scale. Fit one, two, three, maybe four people in a cab. Or someone with a bike or wheelchair. Because these cabs are small and lightweight, they are easy to put up on an elevated guideway – so they don't bump into kids or cars. Add computer control and you get a robotic taxi system that takes you where you want to go when you want to go there. And without lots of stops along the way. Kind of like a taxi.
-- 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 |
Jack Slade
Oxygen safe is a lot different than what is thought to be so in hospitals. They think oxygen burns: that it is a volatile gas. It is not. It just causes other things to burn more rapidly, but those other things have to be already burning before oxy affects tham at all. When you get one poorly trained person training others, this B/S spreads.
They also think "medical oxygen" is different from the oxy in a welders tank. Those of us who know the separation process that produces oxygen know that this is B/S also. I once used my welders oxygen to keep somebody alive till the medics arrived, and it worked.
|
badger
On Feb 4, 9:13 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Oxygen safe is a lot different than what is thought to be so in hospitals. They think oxygen burns: that it is a volatile gas. It is not. It just causes other things to burn more rapidly, but those other things have to be already burning before oxy affects tham at all. When you get one poorly trained person training others, this B/S spreads.
>
> They also think "medical oxygen" is different from the oxy in a welders tank. Those of us who know the separation process that produces oxygen know that this is B/S also. I once used my welders oxygen to keep somebody alive till the medics arrived, and it worked.
>
> Jack Slade
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jack Slade
Wasn't a he; female friend, who suffered an acute asthma attack that even fooled the doctors into believing it was a heart attack. Oxygen works....it all comes from the same atmosphere. Also, if you are ever in a desperate situation, use whatever you have. It is better than no chance at all.
|
|
|
Richard Gronning
Maybe videos in the vehicles that show the opposites. In the historic
system, a rider would see the "future" system and in the modern system,
he/she would see history.
Dick
Jerry Roane
Richard Gronning
On 2/6/2012 10:34 AM, Jerry Roane wrote:
Richard
Jerry Roane
Dennis,
I note your comment below "The tightness of the box surrounding transit
officials is amazing. They don't know about PRT because their curiosity
level is so low they don't even inquire about anything outside the trolley
box. Bus people are about the same."
After reading some negative comments about transportation professionals such
as myself, I contacted you to inquire about PRT and ask some honest
questions. I'm still waiting.
It is extremely unfair to state that we do not understand or know about PRT.
The hardest part for us has been for PRT advocates and vendors to provide
honest and truthful detailed information to us. Explain that.
You want to compare PRT to streetcars, fine. Explain to me how a PRT System
would be safer and more cost effective than streetcars. Note that the
explanation will eventually lead to a lot of details after some honest back
and forth questions.
On streetcars I can pull an emergency cord and get off. PRT?
On streetcars if I require assistance from emergency personnel, they can get
to me quickly. PRT?
On streetcars if one breaks down, traffic can go around it, and I can exit
and catch another, or a taxi, or even walk. PRT?
Modern streetcars have HVAC to maintain comfortable temperatures for
passengers. PRT? (Don't be too quick to answer this question until you've
done the energy calculation, and asked existing PRT vendors about climate
control within their vehicles.)
I'm neither pro-PRT nor pro-streetcar, but you gotta give me something to go
on if you want support.
Jeff.
eph
Disaster scenarios seem to be top of mind. Streetcars are involved in pedestrian, bicycle and automobile accidents.
"A middle-aged man was dragged to his death for at least 600 metres along Queen St. W. by a streetcar Tuesday morning as people frantically tried to alert the driver."
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/919648--pedestrian-killed-by-streetcar
Statistics are hard to come by for streetcar involved accidents.
There are elevated PRT systems with full walkways (ULTra, 2getthere, MicroRail...).
PRT systems tend to have emergency stop (next station) capability.
PRT's stress free environment should lower the need for assistance and emergency responses can be coordinated by remote monitoring personnel. (specific systems/requirements vary)
PRT re-routing is generally automatic, so only a few parties would be affected as opposed to hundreds for a streetcar. Vectus demonstrated a "push" mode to move a stranded car.
A/C is only needed for part of the year and doesn't need to cool a driver, nor does it need to cool the cab while out of service.
F.
Jack Slade
I see the possibility that he has been coached by somebody who is definitely not pro-PRT. Nobody has come up with those questions before. Ask this guy when is the last time he rode a streetcar, please. I have never seen a pull-cord to stop it....I have on old trains.
Emergency personnel? On streetcars? What a joke.
Jack Slade |
|
|
eph
Stop attacking the person (and other rhetoric) and make some valid points. Pissing people off is NOT helpful.
F.
kirston henderson
On streetcars I can pull an emergency cord and get off. PRT?
On streetcars if I require assistance from emergency personnel, they can get
to me quickly. PRT?
On streetcars if one breaks down, traffic can go around it, and I can exit
and catch another, or a taxi, or even walk. PRT?
Modern streetcars have HVAC to maintain comfortable temperatures for
passengers. PRT? (Don't be too quick to answer this question until you've
done the energy calculation, and asked existing PRT vendors about climate
control within their vehicles.)
I read the above set of comments and questions with some interest and have the following general reaction with regard to our own MicroWay PRT configuration:
1. Pulling the cord, if they still have them, on streetcars will generally only mean that the car will stop at the next station stop. A MicroWay car would have both a NEXT STATION buttons and emergency FIRE STOP buttons. The later would cause the entire segment of the line to stop at once to enable passengers immediate exit to the center walkway.
2. Emergency personnel can reach MicroWay passenger either at the next station, in stopped cars, or on the emergency walkways.
3. If a streetcar breaks down, you can't catch another streetcar because streetcars can't pass stopped cars. If a MicroWay segment halts, passengers can exit at stations, even if they need to walk a ways, and then continue in any way in which they desire. By the way, MicroWay also has capability to push stalled cars into stations at the discretion of the system controller for that segment.
4. MicroWay cars have full HVAC at any time that they are in service, including while waiting in stations. HVAC is shut down only when vehicles are in storage. Power loading for HVAC is limited by minimizing the interior volume, heavy tinted windows, full insulation and dual HVAC units in which one is shut down during station waiting. This approach allows our systems to use far less HVAC power than large, heavy systems.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
Richard Gronning
Dennis,
I note your comment below "The tightness of the box surrounding transit
officials is amazing. They don't know about PRT because their curiosity
level is so low they don't even inquire about anything outside the trolley
box. Bus people are about the same."After reading some negative comments about transportation professionals such
as myself, I contacted you to inquire about PRT and ask some honest
questions. I'm still waiting.It is extremely unfair to state that we do not understand or know about PRT.
The hardest part for us has been for PRT advocates and vendors to provide
honest and truthful detailed information to us. Explain that.
On the other side of the coin, many of these developers have valid concepts. To throw the question back at Jeff, how can some sort of forum occur where transportation people can handle concepts and work together with these developers in order to get a developed system? Once again, with different developers working against each other, which one will any professional transportation person or agency work with? There have been such forms in Minnesota, but ultimately they were silenced by elected officials who have control over the transportation agencies.
You want to compare PRT to streetcars, fine. Explain to me how a PRT System
would be safer and more cost effective than streetcars. Note that the
explanation will eventually lead to a lot of details after some honest back
and forth questions.
How can PRT be safer? Overhead systems don't have vehicles and people in the way to run into. Morgantown, WV built a system over 30 years ago. It was supposed to be a PRT system, but ended up a GRT system. They have had no fatalities and only 2 minor accidents in over 30 years of service.
On streetcars I can pull an emergency cord and get off. PRT?
With PRT, you would push a button in order to get off at the next station. This is NOT an emergency button, but one that will get you off at the next station. The next station in even a partially developed system would be 1/2 mile. Do you think that a 2 minute wait is sufficient?
On streetcars if I require assistance from emergency personnel, they can get
to me quickly. PRT?
On streetcars if one breaks down, traffic can go around it, and I can exit
and catch another, or a taxi, or even walk. PRT?
- To begin with, the reliability of Morgantown shows that the occurrence of break-downs will be far and few.
- If it is a total power loss, the pod has a battery that can bring it to the nearest station (again, 1/2 mile or less.)
- If it is a track, then, unlike a streetcar, it has a computer system that will immediately reroute the vehicle and there will be an almost unnoticeable inconvenience of a few seconds.
- If it is a pod, then another pod can push it to the nearest
station. (F. already mentioned this as proven by Vectus.)
Modern streetcars have HVAC to maintain comfortable temperatures for
passengers. PRT? (Don't be too quick to answer this question until you've
done the energy calculation, and asked existing PRT vendors about climate
control within their vehicles.)
I'm neither pro-PRT nor pro-streetcar, but you gotta give me something to go
on if you want support.
What SHOULD push the dialogue along is cost and ridership.
On this chat site, one developer, ULTra, was said to be in the neighborhood of $7 - $15 M per mile. (The figure can be modified by now, I would think.) A person at Vectus told me that its system would be 1/3 the cost of any LRT system. (I don't know what they conclude now.) A figure of $10 M per mile was given by the Princeton study for the entire state of N.J. A marketer from this area said that this would be a ball-park figure for him for a large system. I think that this would put PRT in the ball park so far as competing with streetcars.
At 1/2 second spacing, a PRT system, pods with 3 seats could put 21,000 seats per hour by any given spot. The seats would be for people riding seated in comfort. If there were only a single person, the figure would still be an amazing 7,000 people per hour. I think that this competes favorably with streetcars. But seats are not people! America has the distinction of having public transportation that attracts 2% of the riders. How could PRT be different. How could PRT attract a higher ridership?
To begin with, the safety question that you started with is fully addressed. The pods are safe. You ride with your friends, neighbors, family who are going to the station that you are going to. The pods are also monitored for security. The stations would be safe. Why? because there would be no reason to loiter in a station with on-demand transit. The pods are there waiting. Either you get in and go, or you are loitering. Since there would be monitoring, there would be security there checking within minutes. Next comes on-demand, non-stop travel. This should be a large factor. Ian Ford has a downloadable calculator on his web site, http://www.abqtransp.org/ When he plugged a few figures into this calculator at the conference in San Jose, I saw a few people almost fall out of their seats. The systems should be far more all-weather than any systems built today. That reliability should also be a big factor in choosing public transportation. Sweden has done some modelling. For a mid-sized metropolitan area, for a transit system to get 45% of trips in a dense (down town) area and 35% over-all should attract a transportation person's attention.
I think that a transportation person contributing to this chat site is very welcome. I look forward to your questions. I'm sure that I and the group will come up with some stimulating questions for you as well.
Dick
Dennis Manning
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jerry Roane
Jeff Davis
including the criticisms of transportation professionals. Seems to me that
I have heard about this kind of rhetoric before. In the early 1900's the
Airship was the latest technology in transportation and airship advocates
continually lobbied to gain public support. Advocates of airship tried hard
to get people and governments to throw money at this new technology. Take a
look at the web address; 'http://www.airships.net/futurism'. Airship
advocates wanted everybody to jump on the airship bandwagon and sing the
airship song along with the band.
Notice in the middle of the web page "Goodyear president Paul Litchfield and
publicist Hugh Allen included the following pictures in their 1945 book,
WHY? Why has America no Rigid Airships?".
I suggest for further reading search on; airship advocacy.
Before you start criticizing transportation professionals such as myself for
not jumping on the PRT bandwagon and singing the PRT song, try to step back
and take a big picture view. New technologies and ideas should be properly
vetted, and scrutinized (not the same as criticized). I am happy to learn
about new technologies and ideas, but I also expect the advocates and
advocacy groups to perform competent and thorough analyses.
Note that independent assessments by knowledgeable professionals will help
support your PRT cause more than sales people who only want to sell PRT
systems to the exclusion of considering other viable technologies. When
suppliers misrepresent or exaggerate what a new technology can offer, it
doesn't help your cause. It also doesn't help to believe and make
statements that PRT technology is too complicated and complex for
experienced transportation professionals outside the pro-PRT community to
understand.
If you want the PRT Systems that you are trying to sell to succeed, get
independent and unbiased peer reviews of designs and implementations.
Listen to honest critiques, and respond how your technology will address
those issues found. Finally, make good and deliver on what is promised and
contractually obligated.
Jeff.
Jeff Davis
Dennis,
I note your comment below "The tightness of the box surrounding transit
officials is amazing. They don't know about PRT because their curiosity
level is so low they don't even inquire about anything outside the trolley
box. Bus people are about the same."
After reading some negative comments about transportation professionals such
as myself, I contacted you to inquire about PRT and ask some honest
questions. I'm still waiting.
It is extremely unfair to state that we do not understand or know about PRT.
The hardest part for us has been for PRT advocates and vendors to provide
honest and truthful detailed information to us. Explain that.
You want to compare PRT to streetcars, fine. Explain to me how a PRT System
would be safer and more cost effective than streetcars. Note that the
explanation will eventually lead to a lot of details after some honest back
and forth questions.
On streetcars I can pull an emergency cord and get off. PRT?
On streetcars if I require assistance from emergency personnel, they can get
to me quickly. PRT?
On streetcars if one breaks down, traffic can go around it, and I can exit
and catch another, or a taxi, or even walk. PRT?
Modern streetcars have HVAC to maintain comfortable temperatures for
passengers. PRT? (Don't be too quick to answer this question until you've
done the energy calculation, and asked existing PRT vendors about climate
control within their vehicles.)
I'm neither pro-PRT nor pro-streetcar, but you gotta give me something to go
on if you want support.
Jeff.
Jeff Davis
To all,
I hope that this message gets through. The only thing that began to irritate me was the bashing transportation professionals dialogue. As it turns out, after discussing it with Dennis, apparently you guys were apparently focusing on clients and policy makers. I am a transportation professional that does not fall into that category. I tend to stay transportation or transit technology neutral when working with clients. You have seen a taste of some of the issues I focus on for any transportation system. I tend to put myself into the mindset of the average user as well as learning from a variety of systems.
It appears that some of my questions have been answered. For example, I would definitely consider systems with some type of means to quickly exit a burning/smoking vehicle (search on fire and Seattle monorail, or fire and Disney monorail, or evacuation and Las Vegas monorail). Given that these systems did not have an emergency walkway and there was a definite need to evacuate or risk death, the lack of walkway was a serious problem. I probably should have phrased my comment better and focused on those technologies showing PRT cars running on a monorail type beam.
As far as how to progress, I suggesting soliciting independent reviews of non-biased transportation professionals. Such reviews would need to be extensive. Note that it is very common for consultants such as myself to go through a supplier’s design in detail. We do it all the time, and PRT shouldn’t be treated any different.
Overall questions we need answered are:
‘Prove why you believe your system is safe’. This is explored in detail in the various Hazards Analyses. All suppliers we work with and systems we work on do this in order to build their Safety Case. Yes, I know it’s a lot of work ($$$).
As far as self-powered vehicles (vehicles with on-board propulsion energy storage), it seems somewhat odd to me to refer these systems as ‘Green’. Where do the vehicles get their onboard energy storage recharged from (ultimately)? If the grid is powered by fossil-fuel powered generating stations, you just moved the emissions problem somewhere else. (Was the environmental impact of generating stations needing to increase their energy output to support a PRT System considered?) What about the life cycle of the onboard energy storage devices? Meaning if a PRT vehicle needs batteries replaced on a regular basis, then the energy consumed and environmental impact caused by manufacturing and delivering new batteries, and disposal, or hopefully recycle of used batteries must be considered. Yes, there are other types of energy storage that might not require regular replacement, i.e. super capacitors and such. Unfortunately some of these technologies require some ‘exotic’ and often toxic materials. So the manufacture and disposal of such devices can be a problem and impact the environment.
In addition to the above, what about the empty vehicle movements needed when there is uneven passenger flow? Is the energy consumed by getting empty vehicles to where they are needed included in the overall system energy consumption calculation? (One example might be people travelling from the ‘burbs to the city in the morning, and from the city back to the ‘burbs in the evening)
I have more, but I think that’s enough to chew on for now.
As far as “If Jeff has an answer for why extreme energy is wasted with traditional transit in the name of saving energy I would appreciate it”, show how and why PRT is more energy efficient. Starting from the above questions would help. Consider going full disclosure with unbiased, experienced professionals, and use Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to protect your proprietary information. It’s done ALL the time.
Finally, I know I am not the only one who notices the hundreds of cars in traffic jams to/from work, and virtually all of them have just one passenger (the driver), and think to myself that this is madness and unsustainable. So, I wish you guys success at solving this, and if we can get some positive dialogue going, then we can move onto some other questions.
(Dennis, hopefully this gets through to the group.)
Jeff.
Jerry Roane
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Jeff Davis
F.
You offer some valid points. Streetcars do get into accidents, same as any mixed-mode transit system.
Don’t quite understand how a PRT System is any more or less stress-free than BRT (for example). Can you elaborate?
As far as A/C only needed for part of the year, we should all be so lucky as to live in moderate climates………………
Where I live, a heated car is a MUST-have, and air conditioning almost a MUST-have. What about installing transit systems in Nevada or Arizona? The ‘part’ of the year requiring A/C can be quite long, and conversely what about Maine, or Canada, or Sweden, or Norway? The ‘part’ of the year requiring heating can be quite long.
You are almost correct about not-needing HVAC for vehicles not in service, but what about those vehicles waiting in stations? We can’t tell our passengers to get into 100+ F, or 30- F vehicles. They will either try to find ways to not use the system, or file numerous complaints.
Jeff.
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012
10:35 AM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to
entry for advanced transit systems
Interesting. A few answers from someone with no horse in the race:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/94lxuDPDYJkJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jerry Roane
eph
I know that every car driver has to enter a cold or hot vehicle at some point and it is still the preferred mode of transportation. Also, depending on the redistribution algorithm, it may be that vehicles that are in service get reused before out of service vehicles are summoned, so they would remain at temperature. There are so many ways to manage things, heating and cooling becomes one of the variables to optimize.
F.
Kirston Henderson
I as the CEO of a company developing a system that can include PRT
would be happy to assist you. For starters, we have a nice chart
presentation in pdf format explaining how our system is superior to
streetcars or LRT, I would be happy to send it to you via e-mail and
strive to answer any questions that you have. First of all, I am not
a strong advocate of PRT as a stand-alone system that can provide
essentially door to door service as some advocates, but it does have a
reasonable place, especially in contrast to LRT and streetcars and for
the same money can provide service to many more points within a city.
Please contact me if you are interested. By the way, our company has
asked all of the questions that you have asked and provided means to
meet each of these factors. Furthermore, we have completed all
testing of our demo system and are preparing it for public showing
sometime In late March.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transmutation Systems, Inc.
Jack Slade
Jeff: welcome to the list. I want to answer more of your questions tomorrow when I have more time, but first I think you should check "Toronto Fatal Subway Fire", and what happened in Eastern cities that have subways, during the couple of major blackouts we have had. Streetcar accidents are something else: the accident rate for them in Toronto recently has soared, for some reason, including running over pedestrians.
None of us have "proof" of how safe our systems would be, but they would certainly be comparable with Morgantown.
|
eri...@shaw.ca
Eric Baumgartner
EdmontonPRT.com
Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
Sender: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:29:52
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Reply-to: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Dennis Manning'<john.m...@comcast.net>
eri...@shaw.ca
Eric Baumgartner
EdmontonPRT.com
eph
Why is electric better? Even if Coal is used to generate all the electricity, it still emits less GHG. Reducing GHG emissions requires either non fossil fuel based generation or CCS (which is either just around the corner or a white elephant - depending on who you believe). Lastly, even at current prices, renewable energy costs less than gasoline on a distance/$ to distance/$ comparison. E.I. "filling up" with electricity is cheaper.
F.
Jack Slade
Jeff: Nathan and Kirston have already answered most of your questions, but I think I have something to add to this one: |
|
>>>
|
In addition to the above, what about the empty vehicle movements needed when there is uneven passenger flow? Is the energy consumed by getting empty vehicles to where they are needed included in the overall system energy consumption calculation? (One example might be people travelling from the ‘burbs to the city in the morning, and from the city back to the ‘burbs in the evening)<<<< |
The private automobile is the only existing system that seems to have no empty vehicle movement. With other systems, empty seats must travel all the way to end-of-route before coming back. PRT reduces this, because the empty seats stay at the last station they deliver someby to, until somebody else boards, or the computer recognizes a shortage somewhere else.
This makes it more comparable to taxis, where the drivers no longer do much empty cruising, looking for fares. They just hang around malls, train stations, hotels etc unless they get a call from Dispatch (AKA their computer).
Private cars actually do some "empty" trips: I often used to take the kids somewhere and just drop them off and return home, to go pick them up later....sort of like a family taxi service. More of this will happen when robocars get working.
Jack Slade |
Jeff Davis
Jack,
While I appreciate the time you took to respond (I really do), the explanation is somewhat lacking, if I understand correctly. For clarification, for any transit system there are a finite number of cars/vehicles/trains. Once vehicles at, or near a given station location are used up, they must be replenished; either from a supply of empties nearby, or wait until an empty returns from a trip. So, for systems with uneven passenger flow, the system either needs to have enough vehicles to satisfy the surge event near the location of the surge, or return empties back from completed trips. It’s a closed system, meaning that cars/vehicles/trains aren’t allowed to magically appear where needed, nor magically disappear where not needed. The taxi analogy is good in that once taxis have completed their fare, they must either find a fare on the way back, or go back empty in order to pick up another fare. Your hanging around malls being a good example, what to do once a taxi has picked up a fare at a mall and completed a trip. If there’s no fare readily available nearby, such as people mostly wanting to go from the mall to their home, then the taxi must return to the mall empty.
(As a side note, due to my business travels, I very often observe taxis sitting with the engine running either in cold weather to keep the interior warm, or hot weather to keep the interior cool. Just imagine the volume of energy consumed and the corresponding CO2 given off. If anybody wants to respond that this is quite insane and not sustainable from an energy point of view, no objection from me.)
I am aware of empty seats on transit systems and the need to route empty vehicles/trains to where they are needed, such as a loop system. My main point was that any analysis of a PRT System must consider empty vehicle movements same as any other transit system. The airlines have been dealing with this issue for a long time, i.e. only just so many planes, and they need to get planes from where they end up to where the demand is. It really is no ‘accident’ that they offer cheap fares to get from B to A; it’s because they need to fill the seats from B to A so that the plane with its’ seats, is available on the real money making journeys where people only want to travel from A to B.
Jeff.
--
Jeff Davis
Jerry,
Thanks for the response. Understand that I maybe covering topics already answered and addressed. For that, please forgive or overlook my newness to these topics as they relate to PRT. I am very interested in any information you can offer.
To reiterate, I’m really not pro any specific technology. However, I am pro leveling the playing field such that all technologies are considered equally (given equal and fair consideration). Perhaps what might help is for me to specify which marketing/sales pitch I have questions about. As has been properly noted, some PRT vendors have very good solutions to providing people the capability to exit vehicles when dire circumstances dictate, but others may not. It is the latter that I was speaking to.
Jeff Davis
I would be very happy to review what material you have to offer. I liked to
hear that you guys have asked the same questions internally and may be able
to offer viable solutions. I probably could have worded my questions better
by indicating that I was speaking about the thin monorail beam type of PRT.
Jeff.
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirston
Henderson
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:53 AM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Kirston Henderson
MegaRailR Transmutation Systems, Inc.
Dennis Manning
I've lost sight of the original question. However, your reference to "thin
monorail beam type PRT" is puzzling. So far as I know no one is designing
such a system. Monorails do not allow fast enough switching for PRT
operations. Monorails dictate slow in track switches which means large
headways which in turn drastically lowers capacity. Can you clarify your
concern?
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Davis" <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 6:32 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "'Kirston Henderson'" <kirston....@megarail.com>
Subject: RE: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Jeff Davis
Jack,
Thanks for the response. My only point in this regards is that ‘sh*t happens’, so be prepared by installing as much practical and reasonable measures as possible to save lives and protect passengers. And without searching or hearing about “Toronto Fatal Subway Fire”, I think that you support this point very well.
Jeff.
Jeff Davis
Eric,
Where can I obtain a copy of the referenced safety case?
Jeff.
Jerry Schneider
>Jeff:
>
>I've lost sight of the original question. However, your reference to
>"thin monorail beam type PRT" is puzzling. So far as I know no one
>is designing such a system. Monorails do not allow fast enough
>switching for PRT operations. Monorails dictate slow in track
>switches which means large headways which in turn drastically lowers
>capacity. Can you clarify your concern?
Maybe Bubble Motion from Finland?
Jeff Davis
François,
My only point is that these types of situations should be considered.
Note sure about your statement that electric vehicles us less energy than other forms. Also, don’t forget, for battery powered vehicles include the energy costs associated with obtaining new batteries and disposing/recycling the old. To be fair, internal combustion engines also require maintenance. Just looking for a level and fair comparison.
Jeff.
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of eph
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012
9:51 AM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to
entry for advanced transit systems
Which of those Monorail accident (very few) are meant to show that elevated systems pose a hazard? 2 of them are smoke-filled cabins with no serious injuries and one is a trespasser walking on the beam, another was negligence (collided cars which can easily happen with streetcars).... Your question makes me wonder why you get the impression it is unsafe when many buildings are much taller with no means of access in a fire.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/5OadUConFJcJ.
Jeff Davis
Nothing concrete regarding the monorail beam, (no pun intended) just various
concepts I have seen form different vendors. I must admit, they do look
cool.
Dennis Manning
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 7:40 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
> At 07:23 PM 2/12/2012, you wrote:
Sort of. Most weight on one rail, but second rail in the form of a lighter
outrigger is used.
eph
F.
kirston henderson
> Dennis,
> Nothing concrete regarding the monorail beam, (no pun intended) just various
> concepts I have seen form different vendors. I must admit, they do look
> cool.
>
There are a lot of "concepts" out there that are little, if anything
more than artist concepts with little or no real engineering behind them
that could ever turn them from "concepts" to real hardware.
Kirston Henderson
Dennis Manning
Yes, there's lots of vaporware out there.
I wanted without being too blunt to see if Jeff Davis understands why
monorails most especially wrap around types are not PRT. Does he understand
the crucial role switches play in PRT design. Judging from his flip response
he doesn't. It's a critical point because if he doesn't understand it
there's no way in this wide world is he qualified to pass any kind of
judgment technical or otherwise on PRT.
He needs to explain himself otherwise his linking PRT and monorail shows a
huge gap in his understanding of PRT, and why he insists that PRT safety
demands headways of _____________. I'll let Jeff fill in the blank and
explain.
So what say you Jeff?
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "kirston henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 7:57 AM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
> on 2/12/12 9:48 PM, Jeff Davis at jeff.d...@verizon.net wrote:
Jeff Davis
From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
--
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-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Dennis Manning
Jack Slade
I intend to ask Jeff what transport system it is that he thinks is equipped for brickwall stopping.
Is it the Greyhound bus that zips down the Interstates at 80Mph, with automated ABS that brakes automatically if it gets closer than 500 Ft behind another vehicle? Is it the train with warning systems that tell them if there is something blocking the track just around the bend, and a speed controller that slows it down in inclement weather, so that it does not out-run it's stopping distance? It certainly isn't the 2 streetcars that ran into each other at a station in Toronto a couple of months ago, or the ones that are running over pedestrians.
I think Jeff will admit that Companies pay only lip service to this rule....it is used only in scheduling.
Anybody who wants this rule enforced will obviously not ride trains, busses, and streetcars, and they are too few in numbers for me to bother accomodating with PRT. Normal people who like automobiles should love it.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Davis
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jeff Davis
From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, February 13, 2012, 4:32 PM
-- 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 Schneider
One of my objectives with the ITT website is to help people make
appropriate contacts
and reduce the tendency to "reinvent the wheel" as well as to
stimulate (hopefully)
imagination and creativity to the extent possible. There is more to
life than engineering
and hardware.
Richard Gronning
I've sent a couple of blurbs to this list ans Jeff. Since he hasn't responded to them, including to the one on how to contact Ed Anderson, I wonder if I'm being blocked. Do you get my posts?
Dick
Jerry Schneider
>Dennis,
>Kirston has quite accurately responded to what I meant. I'm all for
>cool, neat looking concepts and don't get involved too much until
>they try to move into the real world. Some time ago I reviewed a
>really sleek looking PRT on a mono-beam concept. Same as everybody
>I thought it looked great on the drawing board. When they contacted
>us about realizing the concept, we had the unfortunate task of
>asking, ok, where are the propulsion motors, air conditioners,
>onboard electronics, how can people easily get in and out, what if
>people need to exit in a emergency, ....? Really didn't want to
>burst a dream, but it was clear they had not performed any real
>engineering, safety or otherwise. That was some years back and I
>don't have any of the literature left.
Sounds like SkyTran to me.
Richard Gronning
While Skyweb Express uses the grab-on vertical axle wheels for switching, so does Vectus. I'm sure that I could find a number of other designs that do this too. Jeff has more studying to do.
Dick
On 2/13/2012 12:04 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
Dennis,
Jerry Roane
JeffA recap of the questions:1. At elevation what are some escape devices and methods?2. Pay a transportation professional extensive amounts to make the transit case.3. Why are guideway cars far less energy consuming?4. How are battery chemicals recycled? How does that compare with crude oil waste products?5. What automation is required to supply appropriate hardware where needed.6. What is the total energy to move a metropolitan area with elevated guideway?7. Are SOVs the problem or is it that SOVs need to get much better to be sustainable?This is way too much for one email but I wanted to break this down into segments for answers from our group. You are coming into a group that has re-hashed all these topics over and over so there is some internal irritation already flowing as you noticed. My next email will address item one of these 7 items. I assure you the science behind our systems is solid as a rock and the technical expertise of this group is impressive in their former technical positions and degrees as well as some in present positions. There is a lot to convey both directions.Thanks
Jerry Roane
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net> wrote:
To all,
I hope that this message gets through. The only thing that began to irritate me was the bashing transportation professionals dialogue. As it turns out, after discussing it with Dennis, apparently you guys were apparently focusing on clients and policy makers. I am a transportation professional that does not fall into that category. I tend to stay transportation or transit technology neutral when working with clients. You have seen a taste of some of the issues I focus on for any transportation system. I tend to put myself into the mindset of the average user as well as learning from a variety of systems.
It appears that some of my questions have been answered. For example, I would definitely consider systems with some type of means to quickly exit a burning/smoking vehicle (search on fire and Seattle monorail, or fire and Disney monorail, or evacuation and Las Vegas monorail). Given that these systems did not have an emergency walkway and there was a definite need to evacuate or risk death, the lack of walkway was a serious problem. I probably should have phrased my comment better and focused on those technologies showing PRT cars running on a monorail type beam.
As far as how to progress, I suggesting soliciting independent reviews of non-biased transportation professionals. Such reviews would need to be extensive. Note that it is very common for consultants such as myself to go through a supplier’s design in detail. We do it all the time, and PRT shouldn’t be treated any different.
Overall questions we need answered are:
‘Prove why you believe your system is safe’. This is explored in detail in the various Hazards Analyses. All suppliers we work with and systems we work on do this in order to build their Safety Case. Yes, I know it’s a lot of work ($$$).
snip---
Jeff Davis
--
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.
Richard Gronning
kirston henderson
Hi Dennis,
While Skyweb Express uses the grab-on vertical axle wheels for switching, so does Vectus. I'm sure that I could find a number of other designs that do this too. Jeff has more studying to do.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
Jack Slade
I also think this is the switching system for Morgantown. It works fine for my Skytrek bench model, and is what I plan to use.
|
|
Richard Gronning
Your posts are very informative. I've wondered about these "steering systems" for a wile now. Your post on monorail jerks made me wonder about the "U" guideway systems from this area. Will they jerk at even moderate speeds? (Probably.)
Dick
Dennis Manning
Dennis Manning
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
Dennis Manning
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:10 AM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
> At 09:31 AM 2/13/2012, you wrote:
>>Dennis,
>>Kirston has quite accurately responded to what I meant. I'm all for cool,
>>neat looking concepts and don't get involved too much until they try to
>>move into the real world. Some time ago I reviewed a really sleek looking
>>PRT on a mono-beam concept. Same as everybody I thought it looked great
>>on the drawing board. When they contacted us about realizing the concept,
>>we had the unfortunate task of asking, ok, where are the propulsion
>>motors, air conditioners, onboard electronics, how can people easily get
>>in and out, what if people need to exit in a emergency, ....? Really
>>didn't want to burst a dream, but it was clear they had not performed any
>>real engineering, safety or otherwise. That was some years back and I
>>don't have any of the literature left.
>
> Sounds like SkyTran to me.
Maybe it's all just a semantics problem. SkyTran isn't a monorail. The rails
are close but there are two of them and the vehicle certainly doesn't wrap
around the guideway. The covering might make it look like monorail.
Dennis
>
>
> - Jerry Schneider -
> Innovative Transportation Technologies
> 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
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jerry Roane
Jeff Davis
Thanks for the detailed response. It will be a few days before I can get to
really reading and studying what you wrote, but I will. It looks
interesting. For our internal simulations we have always used the Davis
rolling resistance formula (no relation that I know of). Just a brief
question regarding the total rolling resistance. You may have already
provided the answer, but what is the total energy consumption for a lot of
little vehicles versus one large vehicle (using an apples to apples
comparison such as passenger loading, accelerations, and maximum speed)?
No need to answer right away because I simply won't be able to get to this
for a few days. The work that pays the rent has to come first, fun
engineering stuff later.
Jeff.
Jeff
Jerry Roane
More later
Jeff.
<mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
For more options, visit this group at
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
<mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
Jack Slade
| Re-try: this msg was sent, but did not show up on the list.....jack S --- On Wed, 2/15/12, Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> wrote:
|
|
Jeff Davis
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 3:31 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
--- On Sat, 2/11/12, Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net> wrote:>>>In addition to the above, what about the empty vehicle movements needed when there is uneven passenger flow? Is the energy consumed by getting empty vehicles to where they are needed included in the overall system energy consumption calculation? (One example might be people travelling from the ‘burbs to the city in the morning, and from the city back to the ‘burbs in the evening)<<<<The private automobile is the only existing system that seems to have no empty vehicle movement. With other systems, empty seats must travel all the way to end-of-route before coming back. PRT reduces this, because the empty seats stay at the last station they deliver someby to, until somebody else boards, or the computer recognizes a shortage somewhere else.This makes it more comparable to taxis, where the drivers no longer do much empty cruising, looking for fares. They just hang around malls, train stations, hotels etc unless they get a call from Dispatch (AKA their computer).Private cars actually do some "empty" trips: I often used to take the kids somewhere and just drop them off and return home, to go pick them up later....sort of like a family taxi service. More of this will happen when robocars get working.Jack Slade--
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.
-- 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.
ur...@pacbell.net
I have been wanting to "upgrade" my 2004 Ford Taurus to full EV status, or to get a '65 Mustang body and chassis and make it into a modern EV, for the same reason the rich guy put the old Charger body on a new chassis. Sadly, I'm not rich. But it's nice to know where I can go if I want to get the custom work done...
Jerry Roane
Jerry-
I have been wanting to "upgrade" my 2004 Ford Taurus to full EV status, or to get a '65 Mustang body and chassis and make it into a modern EV, for the same reason the rich guy put the old Charger body on a new chassis. Sadly, I'm not rich. But it's nice to know where I can go if I want to get the custom work done...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/r_SnBX76yFYJ.
Michael Weidler
From: Nathan Koren <nko...@gmail.com>
To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2012 7:27 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Dennis,
You hit a very good point - the education barrier. I've actually found
that educating the public is relatively easy: you tell them that PRT
is like a robotic taxi on an overhead guideway, show them some videos
of Heathrow etc., and they say "oh, cool!" and are thereafter more or
less on board with the concept. But that honestly doesn't matter very
much, because -- to put it bluntly -- the public is not involved in
the decision-making or implementation process for PRT systems. Since
"the public" doesn't buy, design, build, operate, or regulate PRT
systems, what they think has virtually no bearing on what actually
happens. So the real education barrier is with professionals --
developers, transport planners, land-use planners, regulatory bodies,
etc.
The problem is that professionals know enough to be dangerous. They
can see that the simple "robotic taxi on a guideway" story glosses
over a LOT of genuine complexity; they accurately perceive that PRT is
not trivial to get right. Sometimes their expertise leads them to
wholly fallacious conclusions ("a transport system cannot be ADA-
compliant unless there is a 5-foot-diameter turning circle of clear
floorspace"); other times their expertise helps them to identify a
real potential problem, without giving them any insight into the
solution. An example of the latter would be Vuchic's concept of the
"pulse" problem (http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/vuchic1.htm)
-- which is an entirely legitimate concern, but one that can be
addressed through a combination of in-station or upstream vehicle
buffers, predictive caching of vehicles, and acceptance of the fact
that during extremely rapid pulses at an under-sized PRT station,
there may be a "long tail" of people who will have to wait a number of
minutes to get a ride (making the worst-case PRT wait similar to the
average-case bus wait, so what's the problem with that?).
Now, it's one thing for me to claim that there's a solution for the
pulse problem; it's an entirely different thing for a transport
professional to be able to verify this for themselves. It actually
requires a fairly advanced degree of simulation to see that yes, what
I'm saying is really true. So the transport professional is left with
the choice of either accepting my expertise on faith, or spending some
number of days/weeks/months creating simulations which prove this to
their own satisfaction. And after they've done that, there are still
several dozen other problems of a similar magnitude which they will
probably be able to see but not easily answer.
A lot of these problems are external to PRT itself, but deal with its
interactions with other systems. How do you do demand modelling for
PRT - fitting it into a classic four-stage logit modal split? How do
you estimate the mode-specific constant for this calculation? Sure,
there's a lot of literature out there to review, but once you've spent
some weeks assimilating that... How do you actually manage the
passenger-side pedestrian flows at big intermodal interchanges? (Hint:
classic bus-stop-class PRT stations don't work for that...). How do
you manage the architectural and structural interfaces between
stations and buildings etc.? And how for the love of Pete do you find
out how much the bloody thing even costs?!?
(This latter point is a huge problem, by the way: at the moment,
getting useful costing information out of vendors is like pulling
teeth. Having worked on the vendor side of the industry, I understand
why this is the case: they aren't yet selling a mass-produced off-the-
shelf product, but something that requires a significant amount of
customised design, tooling, and manufacturing for each application.
For a job like that, it'd be irresponsible to just pick numbers out of
thin air and quote them to a customer; therefore the vendors are being
appropriately diligent when they make sure that they fully understand
the context and customer requirements before quoting a price.
Nonetheless, from the client's point of view, this is a big problem.
When costing a bus or train system, the client or their consultants
can simply browse through the costs of thousands of prior
installations -- which are a matter of public record -- and make their
own determination about the probable costs in a matter of hours or
days. When performing an equivalent estimate of PRT costs, some weeks
or months of direct discussions with the vendors are required -- which
is a huge and often untenable commitment of time, energy, and money.)
So: for professionals -- the people who are actually part of the
decision-making process for implementing transport systems -- studying
PRT to the point that you can understand it comprehensively -- not
just the "what" and the "why" but also the exact "HOW" -- requires
months or years of commitment. Few professionals are mad enough to do
that; the light at the end of the tunnel does not seem sufficiently
compelling to warrant such an investment. And that's the real
education barrier, as I see it.
Can it be overcome? Is there some way to dramatically shorten the
learning curve for professionals? I believe that there is, and I'm now
focusing most of my efforts on developing a solution to this problem.
I hope to be able to announce something about this within a few
months...
Cheers,
Nathan
On Feb 3, 4:28 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "kirston henderson" <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:55 AM
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
>
> > on 2/2/12 7:13 PM, Jerry Schneider at j...@peak.org wrote:
>
> >> Why do streetcars appear to have "traction" while PRT is still in a
> >> holding
> >> pattern? Is his framework of the various actors and stakeholders adequate
> >> or
> >> could it be improved? And so on. No need to be bashful.
>
> > Streetcar history goes all of the way back to the days of horse-drawn
> > streetcars and a lot of people simply can't get them our of their heards.
>
> > Kirston Henderson
>
> The biggest difference is almost everyone knows what a street car is and as
> recent posts have shown few know about PRT EVEN AMONG SO CALLED
> TRANSPORTATION EXPERTS.
>
> Street cars aren't faced with the chore (barrier) of educating the public.
>
> The tightness of the box surrounding transit officials is amazing. They
> don't know about PRT because their curiosity level is so low they don't even
> inquire about anything outside the trolley box. Bus people are about the
> same.
>
> Dennis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "transport-innovators" group.
> > transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
Dennis Manning
Jerry Schneider
>Sure. The folks in Seattle have been making use of one for several
>years. One of the developers was computer expert David Maymudes.
Lots more of them at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/simu.htm
>From: <mailto:pstr...@yahoo.com>Michael Weidler
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 12:47 PM
>To:
><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com
>
>Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
>
>Are there any simulators out there which allow one to "draw" a
>guideway and then lead the user through creating a system? A SIMS for PRT?
>
>
><<mailto:john.manni...@comcast.net>john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "kirston henderson"
> <<mailto:kirston.hender...@megarail.com>kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:55 AM
> > To:
> <<mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
> >
> > > on 2/2/12 7:13 PM, Jerry Schneider at
> <mailto:j...@peak.org>j...@peak.org wrote:
> >
> > >> Why do streetcars appear to have "traction" while PRT is still in a
> > >> holding
> > >> pattern? Is his framework of the various actors and
> stakeholders adequate
> > >> or
> > >> could it be improved? And so on. No need to be bashful.
> >
> > > Streetcar history goes all of the way back to the days of horse-drawn
> > > streetcars and a lot of people simply can't get them our of their heards.
> >
> > > Kirston Henderson
> >
> > The biggest difference is almost everyone knows what a street car is and as
> > recent posts have shown few know about PRT EVEN AMONG SO CALLED
> > TRANSPORTATION EXPERTS.
> >
> > Street cars aren't faced with the chore (barrier) of educating the public.
> >
> > The tightness of the box surrounding transit officials is amazing. They
> > don't know about PRT because their curiosity level is so low they
> don't even
> > inquire about anything outside the trolley box. Bus people are about the
> > same.
> >
> > Dennis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > 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
> > >
> transport-innovators+<mailto:unsub...@googlegroups.com>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
><mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>transport-innovators+<mailto:unsub...@googlegroups.com>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-...@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.
>
>--
>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.
Michael Weidler
From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 2:51 PM
Michael Weidler
From: Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 12:04 PM
Michael Weidler
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: RE: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Dennis,
Nothing concrete regarding the monorail beam, (no pun intended) just various
concepts I have seen form different vendors. I must admit, they do look
cool.
-----Original Message-----
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Manning
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 10:23 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Jeff:
monorail beam type PRT" is puzzling. So far as I know no one is designing
such a system. Monorails do not allow fast enough switching for PRT
operations. Monorails dictate slow in track switches which means large
headways which in turn drastically lowers capacity. Can you clarify your
concern?
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jeff Davis" <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 6:32 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: "'Kirston Henderson'" <kirston....@megarail.com>
Subject: RE: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
> Kirston,
> I would be very happy to review what material you have to offer. I liked
> to
> hear that you guys have asked the same questions internally and may be
> able
> to offer viable solutions. I probably could have worded my questions
> better
> by indicating that I was speaking about the thin monorail beam type of
> PRT.
>
> Jeff.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirston
> Henderson
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 1:53 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
>
>
>
>>
>> Dennis,
>> transit
>> officials is amazing. They don't know about PRT because their
>> curiosity
>> level is so low they don't even inquire about anything outside the
>> trolley
>> box. Bus people are about the same."
>>
>> professionals such
>> as myself, I contacted you to inquire about PRT and ask some honest
>> questions. I'm still waiting.
>>
>> It is extremely unfair to state that we do not understand or know
>> about PRT.
>> The hardest part for us has been for PRT advocates and vendors to
>> provide
>> honest and truthful detailed information to us. Explain that.
>>
>> You want to compare PRT to streetcars, fine. Explain to me how a
>> PRT System
>> would be safer and more cost effective than streetcars. Note that the
>> explanation will eventually lead to a lot of details after some
>> honest back
>> and forth questions.
>>
>> On streetcars I can pull an emergency cord and get off. PRT?
>> On streetcars if I require assistance from emergency personnel, they
>> can get
>> to me quickly. PRT?
>> On streetcars if one breaks down, traffic can go around it, and I
>> can exit
>> and catch another, or a taxi, or even walk. PRT?
>> Modern streetcars have HVAC to maintain comfortable temperatures for
>> passengers. PRT? (Don't be too quick to answer this question until
>> you've
>> done the energy calculation, and asked existing PRT vendors about
>> climate
>> control within their vehicles.)
>>
>> I'm neither pro-PRT nor pro-streetcar, but you gotta give me
>> something to go
>> on if you want support.
>>
>> Jeff.
>
> I as the CEO of a company developing a system that can include PRT
> would be happy to assist you. For starters, we have a nice chart
> presentation in pdf format explaining how our system is superior to
> streetcars or LRT, I would be happy to send it to you via e-mail and
> strive to answer any questions that you have. First of all, I am not
> a strong advocate of PRT as a stand-alone system that can provide
> essentially door to door service as some advocates, but it does have a
> reasonable place, especially in contrast to LRT and streetcars and for
> the same money can provide service to many more points within a city.
>
> Please contact me if you are interested. By the way, our company
> has
> asked all of the questions that you have asked and provided means to
> meet each of these factors. Furthermore, we have completed all
> testing of our demo system and are preparing it for public showing
> sometime In late March.
>
> Kirston Henderson
> MegaRailR Transmutation Systems, Inc.
Michael Weidler
From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 9:23 PM
Michael Weidler
From: Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Dennis Manning' <john.m...@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 4:15 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Excellent TRB presentation by Sam Lott, a very experienced transportation consultant who offers copious advice on this highly important topic. Link provided at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/whatsnew.htm
I'd be interested in comments on this presentation - there are several barriers that deserve attention and provide a lot of fodder for discussion. Is there anyone out there who has an interest in this topic?
What's been left out (if anything)? What kind of evolutionary strategy might help to overcome some of these barriers? What are the roles of test tracks and simulations? Are the available demand forecasting models capable of producing decent patronage forecasts in relation to competing, existing modes? What are the likely land use impacts of PRT networks and station location strategies? Why do streetcars appear to have "traction" while PRT is still in a holding pattern? Is his framework of the various actors and stakeholders adequate or could it be improved? And so on. No need to be bashful.
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
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 transport-...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 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.
For more options, visit this group at 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.
For more options, visit this group at 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 .
For more options, visit this group at 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.
Michael Weidler
From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 8:02 AM
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.
Michael Weidler
From: Jeff Davis <jeff.d...@verizon.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Cc: 'Dennis Manning' <john.m...@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Dennis,
I note your comment below "The tightness of the box surrounding transit
officials is amazing. They don't know about PRT because their curiosity
level is so low they don't even inquire about anything outside the trolley
box. Bus people are about the same."
After reading some negative comments about transportation professionals such
as myself, I contacted you to inquire about PRT and ask some honest
questions. I'm still waiting.
It is extremely unfair to state that we do not understand or know about PRT.
The hardest part for us has been for PRT advocates and vendors to provide
honest and truthful detailed information to us. Explain that.
You want to compare PRT to streetcars, fine. Explain to me how a PRT System
would be safer and more cost effective than streetcars. Note that the
explanation will eventually lead to a lot of details after some honest back
and forth questions.
On streetcars I can pull an emergency cord and get off. PRT?
Activate an emergency device on any vehicle just so you can get off and you'll go directly to jail where you belong. I presume you are alluding to the idea that streetcars work more like huge buses (stop on request) rather than trains (stop at station only)? You are correct, that PRT stops only at PRT stations, which are probably farther apart than bus stops. Then again, in "downtown" they may not be any farther apart than bus stops (every other block?).
Assuming that PRT stations are every other block, then the experience of going from the first stop on the line to the last stop is going to be drastically different. On PRT, you won't have to stop every time one of the other 30 passengers wants to get off. It is a direct ride from the stop at which you get on to the stop at which you get off.
On streetcars if I require assistance from emergency personnel, they can get
to me quickly. PRT?
The only time emergency personnel might be required for PRT is if the cab somehow managed to catch fire. In a well designed system with a passenger escape facility they wouldn't be needed then either. In the event of a medical emergency, the car can either pull into the next station and await the EMTs, or be directed to the PRT stop which is inside the nearby hospital.
On streetcars if one breaks down, traffic can go around it, and I can exit
and catch another, or a taxi, or even walk. PRT?
Simply have another car push the disabled vehicle to the next station.
Modern streetcars have HVAC to maintain comfortable temperatures for
passengers. PRT? (Don't be too quick to answer this question until you've
done the energy calculation, and asked existing PRT vendors about climate
control within their vehicles.)
This is one of the reasons why many US advocates are not very enamored with either ULTra or Robbert's company (sorry can't remember the name at the moment).
I'm neither pro-PRT nor pro-streetcar, but you gotta give me something to go
on if you want support.
Jeff.
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Manning
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 11:29 AM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
From: "kirston henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
>
>> Why do streetcars appear to have "traction" while PRT is still in a
>> holding
>> pattern? Is his framework of the various actors and stakeholders adequate
>> or
>> could it be improved? And so on. No need to be bashful.
>>
> streetcars and a lot of people simply can't get them our of their heards.
>
> Kirston Henderson
The biggest difference is almost everyone knows what a street car is and as
recent posts have shown few know about PRT EVEN AMONG SO CALLED
TRANSPORTATION EXPERTS.
Street cars aren't faced with the chore (barrier) of educating the public.
don't know about PRT because their curiosity level is so low they don't even
inquire about anything outside the trolley box. Bus people are about the
same.
Kirston Henderson
Mono beam like taxi 2000 or skytran, or higherway. That is as opposed to Kirston's dual beam or ULTra's road in the sky.
Richard Gronning
Dick
On 4/1/2012 12:39 PM, Kirston Henderson wrote:
On Apr 1, 2012, at 9:10 AM, Michael Weidler wrote:
Mono beam like taxi 2000 or skytran, or higherway. That is as opposed to Kirston's dual beam or ULTra's road in the sky.
If you look closly at the Taxi2000 guideway, you will find that it is really two beams spaced closely together. �As a matter of fact, the total visual cross section and that of the MicroWay� guideway are about the same.
Kirston
--
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.
Jack Slade
From: Michael Weidler <pstr...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 11:51:01 AM
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Nope. Morgantown has 4 wheel steering. The cars do have guide wheels for determining when they are at the wall of the guideway.
From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
From: Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am>
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Date: Monday, February 13, 2012, 7:14 PM
-- 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.-- 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.
Roy Reynolds
Richard Gronning
Morgantown is what Michael says it is. The system was quickly designed and for smaller vehicles. When they discovered that the headway/load combo wasn't sufficient, they built bigger vehicles. Then they found out that the vehicles couldn't make the corners into the stations. The system has both front and rear steerable wheels.
Dick
Jack Slade
From: Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 5:50:28 PM
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systems
Jack;
Morgantown is what Michael says it is. The system was quickly designed and for smaller vehicles. When they discovered that the headway/load combo wasn't sufficient, they built bigger vehicles. Then they found out that the vehicles couldn't make the corners into the stations. The system has both front and rear steerable wheels.
Dick
On 4/1/2012 3:39 PM, Jack Slade wrote:I think it was Roy Reynolds, a long time ago, who worked for Boeing when they took over the Morgantown project, who posted that info to the list many years ago. I know there are wheels, but they track either the left guide-rail( bypass a atation) or right guide-rail (enter next station). Maybe somebody else remembers this?Jack Slade
From: Michael Weidler <pstr...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 1, 2012 11:51:01 AM
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [t-i] Barriers to entry for advanced transit systemsNope. Morgantown has 4 wheel steering. The cars do have guide wheels for determining when they are at the wall of the guideway.