Rita Mae Brown

[WALTER BREWER]

Here comes THE amswer!

 

http://www.trb.org/IDEAProgram/Public/IDEATransit.aspx

 

Walt Brewer

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

Yea I fell for that line already.  They want nothing to  do with innovation just status quo protection.  If you have a better bus paint job maybe a new shade of green wash you are their guy.  What a waste of my time, money and effort!  

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-...@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.

[Dennis Manning]

I’m with Jerry on this. IDEA looks like RITA all over again where innovation means incremental improvements to the existing system. All one has to do is look at the projects being funded. Nothing even hints at ATN technology.

 

Dennis

 

From: Jerry Roane

Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:48 PM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] Rita Mae Brown

 

Walt

 

Yea I fell for that line already.  They want nothing to  do with innovation just status quo protection.  If you have a better bus paint job maybe a new shade of green wash you are their guy.  What a waste of my time, money and effort! 

 

Jerry Roane

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 8:43 PM, WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:

Here comes THE amswer!

 

http://www.trb.org/IDEAProgram/Public/IDEATransit.aspx

 

Walt Brewer

 

--
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 mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Michael Weidler]

If I read it correctly, the max for any project is $200,000 over 2 phases. 200 grand isn't going to go very far for most PRT systems. On the other hand, if you can come up with something that is relevant to regular transit as well as PRT (with a price tag less 200 grand), this may be your ticket. One thought is to use the new Customer Satisfaction Index to "prove" that PRT will get a larger share of riders than conventional transit. --- On Sat, 8/4/12, WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:

[WALTER BREWER]

Jerry,

 

Do you think it is enept leaders, or strong lobbies?

 

Walt Brewer

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

From: Jerry Roane

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:48 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Rita Mae Brown

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

My guess is the leaders of this group are lobbyists for the transit industry and they became the leadership.  I just know I read their offer years ago and did the dance but you can look at what they fund and figure out they are not interested in what any of us have to offer.  This is all speculation.  Each person in leadership has their own reasons and agenda.  I have witnessed the diesel engine manufacturer's lobby dude.  He was quite comical in his approach.  He said in an EPA summit that diesel engines were so clean they couldn't measure the pollution.  What a maroon!  (quoting Bugs Bunny)  

Discussing their ability to learn probably isn't going to do us much good.  Somehow these guys, as a group, will need to figure it out before it is too late.  I have very little faith in group-think especially around transit.    Look at the performance with BTU per mile and you have to ask yourself what are these guys thinking advocating for no global warming while pushing horrible stats for global warming potential.  I guess since 80% of the world population lives near water and transit trains are built in population centers that as the sea rises middle continent cities can get a deal on used rail, ties and trains buying them scrap from the edge cities.  Edge of the sea.  

Jerry Roane 

[WALTER BREWER]

I have never ben able to get other than generalities from mass transit activists to the question of why is it the Holy Grail that will solve all transportation, and a few community ones to boot. Apparently the CSX TV Ad showiing almost 500 ton- miles/gal of dirty Diesel oil is all it takes to show mass transit in cities will do as well.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:43 PM 8/6/2012, you wrote:
>I have never ben able to get other than generalities from mass
>transit activists to the question of why is it the Holy Grail that
>will solve all transportation, and a few community ones to boot.
>Apparently the CSX TV Ad showiing almost 500 ton- miles/gal of dirty
>Diesel oil is all it takes to show mass transit in cities will do as well.

I have never been able to understand why some people think that its
the technical attributes that are important to the "people" who
govern, vote and make the investment decisions. Ton-miles just
doesn't cut it with them Ordinary people love trains, they have from
early childhood. Electeds love big capital projects - the benefits
are enormous. Large engineering construction companies also love
large capital projects - as do lawyers who sell bonds for a fee and
the environmentalists believe that MT will make enormous
contributions to environmental quality quite fervently. Auto
companies do not feel threatened by mass transit investments as they
know MT won't damage their business and might even help it by easing
congestion a tiny bit. Some developers love mass transit as can
produce large windfall gains in land values that they often can reap.
Give all these people all the technical facts and statistics you
have, complete with graphics and videos, bombard them day and night
with them, it will not cause them to change their minds in the least.


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

[Jack Slade]

I do question statements like "ordinary people love trains, they have from early childhood".  I am not sure I know any of these ordinary people.  I cannot think of one person I know who,  if planning a trip,  would include train travel for any part of it.  If train was the only way to get somewhere,  they might even change plans to avoid that leg of the trip.   I don't even know anybody who has been on one in the last 40 years.

 

Jack Slade

 

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2012 7:59:58 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Rita Mae Brown

-- 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.

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

The change will be generational.  The old entrenched will retire and the next generation will tear down the stuff these guys build.  How much crap from the 1970s is still standing?  That decade made the lowest quality houses and cars.  The present generation uses the land where these houses were thrown up to build McMansions. 

Bad ideas and bad management like the Hummer will die off.  GM would have died off or retracted had Kirston not falsely saved the poor management. 

You are right when you scout the book stores for  grandson books there are plenty of romantic images of trains.   How we reach the next generation is key.  I believe the age cutoff to be 32 years old.  Older than that and slash and burn grap and go seems to win the day.  The more you can grab the better???

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]

Jerry,

Please don't blame me for saving GM.  They only used my tax dollars for that one.  From recent reports GM is continuing to bleed money.

Kirston

[Jerry Roane]

Yea your money. 

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-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[WALTER BREWER]

Jerry,

 

Technical facts-based or not the MT lovers who largely dominate urban transportation decision making are smart eneough to find ways to rationalize their ideology-driven decisions. Early in the preparation process for San Diego's infamous 2050RTP, it was recognized MT's tiny contribution to energy/emissions reduction would be overwhelmed by modest auto improvement and road expansion.

So emphasis was shifted to MT access by a wide assortment of non-drivers. Several organizations with little or no design or performance experience and  interest were brough into working groups. At the Directors review and decision to procede 100 of them lined up to speak for 2 minutes.

The Plan performance summary table has 3 times as many pages about MT aces to low income riders etc etc than the technical performance. Modest access improvens were shown, but autos are still 3 times more accessable to work within 30 min, etc. Proformance is priority for meeting new State requirements about GHG etc etc.

 

With help from a lot of that leverage Directors passed the Plan 17 to 2.  1 of the 2 voted no because there was not enough MT emphasis.

 

Yes it is difficult to get technology-based decisions made in this context. With a 30% or more stake in putting up funds, where are the feds?

 

What is your solution?

 

You know mine. Do it lile the military for major technology-driven development.

 

Knowledgble experienced offers and industry partners at several levels. Head office leadership that insiste on objective eveluation for beat bet solutions.

That doesn't mean Fed design are isued to communities a la Soviet Union. But prototype proof of concept for industry implementaion would be established.

 

Walt Brewer

 

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

From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>

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

Sent: Monday, August 06, 2012 7:59 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Rita Mae Brown

>        
>
>

> --
> 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]

At 10:58 AM 8/7/2012, you wrote:

>Jerry
>
>The change will be generational. The old entrenched will retire and
>the next generation will tear down the stuff these guys build. How
>much crap from the 1970s is still standing? That decade made the
>lowest quality houses and cars. The present generation uses the
>land where these houses were thrown up to build McMansions.

Bad analogy. Do you know how much debt that the various LRT projects
are carrying? The bond holders always holler "I want my money"!

>Bad ideas and bad management like the Hummer will die off. GM would
>have died off or retracted had Kirston not falsely saved the poor management.

The Hummer is not a system with sunk costs for the society. Another
bad analogy.

>You are right when you scout the book stores for grandson books
>there are plenty of romantic images of trains. How we reach the
>next generation is key. I believe the age cutoff to be 32 years
>old. Older than that and slash and burn grap and go seems to win
>the day. The more you can grab the better???

I think the next generation is being well-indoctinated regarding
trains - by toys and TV cartoon programs that glorify them enormously.

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

You bring up an excellent point we should put more emphasis on.  The poor.  What are the poor going to do under improved mobility?  How will we pay their transportation bills?  It is clear with charts and graphs and numbers or instruments on the tailpipes of MT that we win the dirty air argument and the diesel fuel bill is obvious.  Then what?  Our next layer is going for a way to fund the poor.  Looking at paying for mobility globally the less it costs to move people the less somebody has to pay to move them.  That is unless they abuse the free stuff and ride all day long for free just to get the free air conditioning.  This happened in Austin when they did free bus rides so they had to stop the practice.  

First there is access.  If the poor do not live in TOD then how well served are they by what is now?  I suggest the ones who live near city centers are reasonably served but the ones who live in more rural areas are not by the bus.  Are the poor in cities more valuable people than the rural poor?  

Here is my big IF.  What if mobility was an order of magnitude cheaper and three times faster couldn't the bus drivers be converted to become taxi drivers and replace all bus service and trolley service with chauffeured ultra-smooth rides to most of the places they want to go.  This is predicated on high speed that would allow a single bus driver to convert to taxi mode with a better vehicle and serve more passengers than he did earlier with his lumbering stinky bus.  If we can show that even a slower vehicle system well run like PRT (free plug guys) door to door non stop service can be the chauffeur that that would also make the public's payment for giving the poor rides will save the public money.  The other suggestion is to pay the poor with a new system.  Put in enough PV Solar on the right of way that it over produces electricity that is sold to pay for the poor's rides.  By providing an answer to the advocates for the poor with real mobility we can take our story past the next level.  "The poor will be with you always"  comes to mind.  A profound overstatement of fact that any new system has to cope with well.  

Jerry Roane   

[Jerry Schneider]

At 07:58 AM 8/8/2012, Walt B wrote:

>What is your solution?

As I've stated many times, I favor a revival of the New Systems study
done back in the 70's. I have a posting that describes it at
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/reflec2.htm.

>
>You know mine. Do it lile the military for major technology-driven
>development.

Still stuck on technology which is important but not dominant.

[Eric Johnson]

A new study implies a willingness to consider new ideas which is sorely missing at the national level and from US DOT & HUD. 

Eric

[WALTER BREWER]

Jjerry,

 

Really SANDAG's point  And I have refrtrnced non-drivers when it come to transpotation; there is a close correlation.

 

It also emphasizes non-drivers are the only segment forced to use MT. All the rest at least have personal transportation options..

Very dense cities  of cours have som faorable MT options.

If you Google 2050Regional Transportation Plan  SANDA, and look at Table TA 3.1 in Tech Appendix 3, there are 7 pages of data showing interactions of the $34 billion saturation MT with low income, minorities, etc etc.

As  noted gains from current low access percentages, but far from auto access performance.

 

Indeed a fruitful area for PRT. But what areas to start with? SD at least i think there is coorelation with CBD, but probably little overlap with business portions.

Again 2050RTP probably has a section describing the demographics it used for these results.

 

More philosophicy the public has already agreed on heavy subsidy foe this population segment.

MT is really a last stand. PRT and, (gasp), Robocar are candidates to make available at low price to these users travel quality more like the rest.

 

In San Diego 98% of travel is by some form of personal travel; walk. bike, ~90% autos.

The MT bubble burst starting in  late '20's. The private operators had givem up by the '50's and the tiny 2% is all that is left.

30% of the pop do not drive for variousreasons, but only 5% OF THOSE use the expensive MT already operation. 2050RTP MT costs begin to get into taxi territory.

 

Indeed a cheaper, greener lass land hungry is needed.

 

But speaking of brick walls, there sits the MT ideology!.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 10:06 AM 8/8/2012, you wrote:
>A new study implies a willingness to consider new ideas which is
>sorely missing at the national level and from US DOT & HUD.

And why is there an unwillingness to consider new ideas at this time
- unless you're a gadget inventor or want to find a more lethal way
to kill people?

[Kirston Henderson]

One of the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Federal Government is
that of defending the nation and that role is assigned to the DoD, that
unfortunately, often involves killing the nation's enemies. Hence, the DoD
must constantly look for more efficient ways to do just that because the
nation's enemies are constantly looking for more efficient ways to kill us.

Another of the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Federal
Government is to build "post roads," something that has become a national
highway system. That task has been assigned to the DoT, which primarily
simply doles out tax money to the various States for building and
maintaining Federal Highways. Just how the Feds get the charter to fund
railroads, streetcars, LRT, etc. is something that evades me. The land
grants made a long time ago to railroad companies seem to fit the charter of
serving as post roads, but I really can't find any excuse for the other
stuff that they fund.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
www.megarail.com

[Jerry Schneider]

At 01:50 PM 8/8/2012, you wrote:
> One of the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Federal Government is
>that of defending the nation and that role is assigned to the DoD, that
>unfortunately, often involves killing the nation's enemies. Hence, the DoD
>must constantly look for more efficient ways to do just that because the
>nation's enemies are constantly looking for more efficient ways to kill us.
>
> Another of the constitutional requirements of the U.S. Federal
>Government is to build "post roads," something that has become a national
>highway system. That task has been assigned to the DoT, which primarily
>simply doles out tax money to the various States for building and
>maintaining Federal Highways. Just how the Feds get the charter to fund
>railroads, streetcars, LRT, etc. is something that evades me. The land
>grants made a long time ago to railroad companies seem to fit the charter of
>serving as post roads, but I really can't find any excuse for the other
>stuff that they fund.

You might like to read the Urban Mass Transportation Act someday that
Congress passed a long time ago.
It created the Urban Mass Transportation Administration which is now
called FTA. If you want to challenge
the constitutionality of that act, go right ahead. Maybe this can
help you get started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Mass_Transportation_Act_of_1964

By the way, I wonder why you chose the name MegaWay when Railway is
such a common term, widely used.

Jerry

[Kirston Henderson]

I know that that act was passed by Congress and Signed into law by the
President. That does not necessarily mean that it would stand up to a
Constitutional challenge, but I'm not going to get involved it that sort of
thing.

Looking for a Company and Product name that can be trademarked is often
a difficult matter and we looked long and hard before coining the name
MegaRail®. In retrospect, that name was not a very good choice, because we
finally realized that our systems DO NOT HAVE ANY RAILS! What we originally
called "rails" was incorrect because they are, in reality, portions of
narrow roads for rubber tires. A pair of these "narrow roads" or WheelWays,
as we now call them, make up what we now call a SuperWay which is, in
reality, a special form of a "freeway." We call our primary large system,
"MegaWay. "

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
www.megarail.com

[Eric Johnson]

It's really quite simple. Folks get a hell of a lot more upset about body bags vs dealing with some rush hour traffic.   

 

Patton is quoted as saying "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." Our military & many others has taken that to heart with the additional caveat of trying to minimize collateral harm to innocent personnel and damages. What took 100+ WWII bombers to accomplish is now possible with one bomb from one plane. 

 

Our military also uses non-lethal munitions, leaflets, and radio/tv/internet broadcasts to communicate with people in hostile areas.   Our troops also get training on local customs & courtesies to minimize accidental slights and much more. So a lot is done in the non-lethal side of the equation.

 

Why does US DOT and/or HUD do more? I suspect it is simply because transit is not sexy outside of HSR. Republicans & conservatives don't like transit because there is little to show for the huge amounts spent on it. Democrats seem to just like the way things are. 

 

Our options are to talk to the various groups and lobby them about PRT's strengths that support their positions. Conservatives will like the low operating costs & off the shelf technology making it low risk, while having issues with paying for more transit. Liberals should like it because of helping the poor & disabled, zero emissions, mass transit aspects while wondering about how it'll impact rail & bus unions. 

Eric

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

Robo-cars from Google have their roots in robo-cars to go hunt down and kill people.  I am not sure the hired guns from the robo-car military game are compatible with Google's reputation.  Maybe those military dollar chasing guys can turn over a new leaf and not design the best killing machines every devised.  If you were to combine maps with street view with face recognition with robo-cars that would make one heck of a killing machine.  Use all the millions of robo car video feeds on a massive bandwidth military-net to locate faces they want killed and then issue robo-cars with mounted robo-guns to kill those faces.  

Now that could get funding and they wouldn't need a single venture capital guy to make it happen.  To your point these robo-car guys are both of what you say.  They have a gadget they have invented and they have a much more lethal way to more effectively kill specific people.  That makes it far more acceptable.  ---  right??? 

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.

[Eric Johnson]

Jerry,

The only autonomous vehicles I've read or heard about were freight haulers for the troops. The idea is they would haul needed ammo, food, and other supplies to the front lines to reduce the risk of troops from IEDs and ambushes. The Army had a contest to see if anyone could get a robocar to drive a 25 mile or so circuit in the desert and none completed the challenge. I believe they'll redo the challenge after 2 years if the budget allows it. 

We are nowhere near the stage of giving robocars autonomous use of guns.

Eric

[Jack Slade]

We have drones that fire rockets.  It does not have to be autonomous:  there can be remote operators that make the decisions.

 

Jack Slade

From: Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:42:28 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Rita Mae Brown

--

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/-/V7yJ0qIU2fcJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Eric Johnson]

Drones are best described as RPVs - Remotely Piloted Vehicles. They do have autopilot abilities to fly a set course. But, they still have people monitoring them and selecting surveillance points and targets. We are no where near the point of giving them full autonomous target selection and attack capabilities since there are just too many variables on the battle field for a computer to fully handle. Plus there is a host of political issues that need to be worked out before anyone would hand over the mission to a drone.

RPVs will be the mode of operation for at least the next 10 years.

Eric

[Richard Gronning]

From what I can ascertain, the automation of all segments of flying
will continue at an accelerated rate.
I believe that automated surface travel will also continue to be automated.
Various forms of advanced automated transit will always need a certain
amount of human oversee. If for no other reason, it will be for security.

Dick

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:57 AM 8/9/2012, you wrote:
> From what I can ascertain, the automation of all segments of flying
> will continue at an accelerated rate.
>I believe that automated surface travel will also continue to be automated.
>Various forms of advanced automated transit will always need a
>certain amount of human oversee. If for no other reason, it will be
>for security.

Don't you believe that security (personal and system integrity) is a
MAJOR requirement for automated systems, not a side issue?

[Jerry Roane]

Dick

I agree that the security aspect of keeping paint off the guideway poles will need constant human oversight.  A trained police officer can tell from body language a lot about a suspect before the act.  What automation can do is direct the attention of the security guy to moving figures in the scenes from thousands of low cost cameras.  The security staff would not be able to effectively scan hundreds of thousands of shots of a pole with nothing going on.  The software would need to have some capability to detect features of the video feed that would be of interest to the policeman on duty assigned to watching for criminal activity.  A combination of man and machine is probably where we will be for a while.  Motion is figured out and the military is not going to tell you when they develop a new technology. It is not in anyone's interest to know how advanced their drone capabilities are.  If a defective coke bottle can be spotted and removed from a bottling line with automation it is not that much of a stretch to take out a defective 6'8" figure in a sea of shorter dudes.  Seeker technology is probably more advanced than we all know.  Tracking a prescribed trajectory is a done deal.  Targeting from pattern recognition is no different than a wire bonder looking at a wafer feature and placing a gold wire ball on the connection pad.  

Just sayin'

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.

[Richard Gronning]

To begin, I meant "accelerated" in the 2nd sentence. Sorry!

Major requirement? Yes, I agree. Personal and system integrity is one
aspect of a system safety and security. I read an Atlantic Monthly
report on safety that concluded that security can never be completely
automated. Systems will always need human monitors for their safety and
security. I also think that a number of safety and security items can be
combined into the function of an organizational human facility designed
for oversight.

[Richard Gronning]

You've got this figured right. The automation of motion detectors,
cameras, various safety sensors that run the system, all have to be
monitored by somebody who may have the ability to think. I believe that
drills and checks should be part of the picture.

A big item with me is the Fukushima disaster. I worry especially about
the nuclear plants on our West coast. Have they been properly
maintained? Have they been upgraded? Have the monitoring teams been
drilled in how to quickly handle various events? Do these teams do
regular exercises in handling various events?

Dick