REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
van...@comcast.net
I wonder what the group thinks about the following thoughts that I have had for some time:
1) a major reason that PRT has not been adopted may be a revenue problem: that it is difficult to show a high expected ratio of revenue to capital and operating costs, making it unattractive to potential investors.
2) the revenue/cost ratio might be substantially increased by using GRT vehicles each of which at times might operate on demand and within a certain short length of time to carry only one person but which at most other times might carry 8, 10, 12 or even more people wanting to travel, each paying a fare.
3) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by allowing use of at least some on line stations and reducing the number of off-line stations each of which is expensive in requiring additional lengths of guideways, Y-junctions, etc.
4) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by dividing a system that serves a large urban area into loops each serving only a portion of the area and allowing transfers from one loop to another. (Any system that is built may also, of course, allow transfers to existing systems.)
5) One reason I don’t use public transit is not that I dislike traveling with other people. In fact, I rather like to travel with other people. I don’t think I am alone in having this feeling.
6) I wouldn’t object to encountering a number of stops in getting where I might want to go as long as the average number of stops is limited. I think that others may feel the same way.
7) I wouldn’t object to transfers if they were very limited in number and if each transfer didn’t take too long. I think that others may also feel the same way on this issue.
8) I would use a transit system, whether or not it might involve traveling with other people, if I could expect to get aboard a vehicle and start moving within a short time, be carried at reasonably fast speed when moving and encounter delays that are relatively few in number and duration. That is, I would use the system if I could expect to get where I want to go in a time that is of reasonably short total duration.
9) I think that it is possible that GRT systems might operate with low fares and yet produce high profits while serving the needs and desires of most people in any given area or region.
10) Is it really necessary or desirable that systems be "personal"? Is it really necessary or desirable that on line operations and transfers be completely avoided?
Van Lund
Ian Ford
speculation. All of the cost saving features you mention are also
ridership-reducing features. Less ridership = less revenue. So, GRT
service could be provided for less cost and less revenue, with the end
result that it has less impact on total energy use, total number of
deaths, and most other important factors. However, in a very small
application where GRT service is almost as good as PRT service (as
measured by end to end travel time), then maybe the cost savings could
more than compensate for the small reduction in ridership.
> --
> 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.
--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.908.9426
WALTER BREWER
--
Jerry Schneider
>All these things can be projected, and don't need to be purely
>speculation. All of the cost saving features you mention are also
>ridership-reducing features. Less ridership = less revenue. So, GRT
>service could be provided for less cost and less revenue, with the
>end result that it has less impact on total energy use, total number
>of deaths, and most other important factors. However, in a very
>small application where GRT service is almost as good as PRT service
>(as measured by end to end travel time), then maybe the cost savings
>could more than compensate for the small reduction in ridership.
Considering all the variables Van cites, I'm not so sure that the
travel behavior of potential transit riders is all that easy to
project. Also, remember that Cabintaxi provided for a blended PRT/GRT
service by being able to operate vehicles of three different sizes on
the same guideway. I would guess that they did this to help overcome
PRT's "infernal capacity" perceived problem.
I presume that they may have done some financial projections
regarding costs, fare strategies and revenue relationships but I
don't know what their long-ago results may have been.
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Jack Slade
Jerry: Regarding your last sentence. I think we do know the result of their calculations, namely, nobody wanted it, so their calculations may have been wrong.
A GRT guideway can never match the efficiency of PRT, because it's higher cost dictates a higher fare, which in turn reduces ridership. Nothing can match the cost of a small factory-built guideway that is erected on-site.
|
|
|
van...@comcast.net
Ian: You may be correct. However, I don't think I am engaging in "pure speculation". It is not necessarily true that less cost means less ridership. Less cost means a lower fare which can increase ridership to the extent that overall revenue is increased, increasing the revenue/cost ratio and the potential profit to an investor. This can be true even if expected travel times are increased to some degree, especially if costs and fares are greatly reduced.
Putting it another way, increasing costs may so increase fares and thereby reduce ridership and the ratio of expected revenue to cost that no one would invest in the system, which may be the case with PRT. It all depends.
I might also note that the demand for service generally peaks during rush hours. In a PRT system, each vehicle may only carry 3 ot 4 people who want to travel together and/or to the same destination. Each vehicle may also require a certain loading area in an entrance station. If many of those vehicles will carry only one person during rush hours, meeting the peak demand with a PRT system will require a number of vehicles and loading areas that may be several times greater than would be required for a GRT system. In relation to peak demand and ridership, vehicle and station costs and thereby fares should be much lower with a GRT system.
Van
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Ford" <i...@ianford.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:09:44 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
All these things can be projected, and don't need to be purely
speculation. All of the cost saving features you mention are also
ridership-reducing features. Less ridership = less revenue. So, GRT
service could be provided for less cost and less revenue, with the end
result that it has less impact on total energy use, total number of
deaths, and most other important factors. However, in a very small
application where GRT service is almost as good as PRT service (as
measured by end to end travel time), then maybe the cost savings could
more than compensate for the small reduction in ridership.
On 2011-02-27 12:30, van...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> --
> 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
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.908.9426
--
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.
Dennis Manning
van...@comcast.net
Walter:
I am willing to travel with others and encounter delays if overall travel time is not excessive. I don't ride mass transit because it takes too long to get where I want to go and is too much of a hassle. I think many others don't ride mass transit for the same reasons. I also think that GRT while not perfect could satisfy my desires and those of many others and also make a profit with reasonalble fares and require no subsidy. I also think that potentially high PRT costs may not only discourage approval by transportation agencies but may require fares that are so high as to discourage ridership, revenue and profits so as to make PRT unattractive to private investors. I could be wrong.
Van
van...@comcast.net
Dennis:
I am not recommending conventional mass transit. I am recommending a system which is like proposed PRT systems in using vehicles which operate on demand and on dedicated elevated guideways. One difference is that each vehicle can carry a larger number of people (e.g. 8, 10 or 12 rather than 3 or 4); this will increase the cost of each vehicle to some limited degree, but decrease overall costs relative to fare revenue; the peak demand which occurs at rush hours can be met with a smaller total number of vehicles. Assuming that a certain fare will be charged per passenger, and when considering that in a PRT system, up to 3 or 4 passengers will want to travel together and/or to the same destination in one PRT vehicle that may oftentimes carry only one person, the ratio of revenue to vehicle costs with GRT vehicles should be much greater than with PRT vehicles. The cost of guideways may increase with the number passengers carried by each vehicle but not in direct proportion and probably not much at all.
Two other differences is that some stations may be on-line and transfers may be allowed, both of which, I believe, should reduce costs without greatly reducing usage and revenue.
You may be correct in saying that "Personal travel is by far the most desired", but as I said, I don't mind travel with other people and in fact like to do so and I believe that many other people may feel the same way. I know that some people get nostalgic about the good old days of train trave. Some people may feel safer when with others but, at the same time, no one should have to enter a GRT vehicle with others they don't trust for any reason. But I am certainly open to considering evidence as to the feelings of the general public on the personal travel issue.
One other thing: I know that the public is going along with subsidies, but I think we will be much better off, and more likely to succeed, with systems that can operate at a profit and require no taxpayer support.
Van
I
Dennis Manning
Brad Templeton
I always felt that the selling point of PRT was that it was in some
ways better than private car travel. Better in that it avoids
congestion, you don't have to drive, and there is no parking to worry
about and no huge up-front costs. Worse in that you have to walk to
and from stations (possibly with bags,) in some cases you might wait
for a car, you can't keep a collection of personal stuff in the car,
you can't give people rides or show off your wealth/style.
But maybe it should be priced more like luxury travel than public
transit. As in, even more expensive than car travel. Though no
extra charge for extra people in the pod to the same destination, just
like a car.
With subsidy tickets for the poor and disabled to make it be more like
transit price for them.
The problem of course is that the cost of car driving is split up into
different places (not even counting the tax-paid infrastructure.)
Most of it is spent up front, when you buy a car and insurance and a
garage on your house, and a more modest amount for gasoline and
parking. And of course in many locations there is free parking
(either tax-paid infrastructure or destination paid.)
So if you priced it at the full-weight cost of the car trip, people
would view it as much more expensive, and only consider that math if
they are deciding "should I own a car or not?" Transit systems, PRT
or otherwise, are rarely enough to get people to decide not to own a
car. They need access to cars for some trips, and must be able to get
them from car share, car rental or taxi. It's possible a PRT system
really can't work unless it is paired with an appropriate car share or
taxi offering, so that the math is clear that the total offering gives
them more for the same price, or similar for a lower price.
Many people think New York's frequent subways are what allow so many
people to not own cars and thus use transit more. I think it's the
Taxi system. Even though taxi fares are many times as much as subway
tickets.
On Feb 27, 9:13 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> I hear what you are saying. You might consider that studies show PRT loads are spread more evenly through the day than mass transit. GRT while perhaps better sized during rush hour will be oversized for the other 20 or so hours. GRT trips will be slower with more stops especially if much disliked transfers are employed. That will lower demand. In short I don't think there's any cost savings overall, and I can see diminished service. I think lack of capacity on PRT is a red herring. A PRT system whose capacity is challenged will be a big money maker and the solution is to build more PRT.
>
> Dennis
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 8:39 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
> Dennis:
>
> I am not recommending conventional mass transit. I am recommending a system which is like proposed PRT systems in using vehicles which operate on demand and on dedicated elevated guideways. One difference is that each vehicle can carry a larger number of people (e.g. 8, 10 or 12 rather than 3 or 4); this will increase the cost of each vehicle to some limited degree, but decrease overall costs relative to fare revenue; the peak demand which occurs at rush hours can be met with a smaller total number of vehicles. Assuming that a certain fare will be charged per passenger, and when considering that in a PRT system, up to 3 or 4 passengers will want to travel together and/or to the same destination in one PRT vehicle that may oftentimes carry only one person, the ratio of revenue to vehicle costs with GRT vehicles should be much greater than with PRT vehicles. The cost of guideways may increase with the number passengers carried by each vehicle but not in direct proportion and probably not much at all.
>
> Two other differences is that some stations may be on-line and transfers may be allowed, both of which, I believe, should reduce costs without greatly reducing usage and revenue.
>
> You may be correct in saying that "Personal travel is by far the most desired", but as I said, I don't mind travel with other people and in fact like to do so and I believe that many other people may feel the same way. I know that some people get nostalgic about the good old days of train trave. Some people may feel safer when with others but, at the same time, no one should have to enter a GRT vehicle with others they don't trust for any reason. But I am certainly open to considering evidence as to the feelings of the general public on the personal travel issue.
>
> One other thing: I know that the public is going along with subsidies, but I think we will be much better off, and more likely to succeed, with systems that can operate at a profit and require no taxpayer support.
>
> Van
>
> I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 6:09:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
> I would skip to #10 and unequivocally say yes. Personal travel is by far the most desired. Any stepping back toward mass transit is a mistake. If you go this route at what point would it not make sense? If a little bit is good why not more?
>
> Smaller, lighter, faster, with greater accessibility is the way to go. Reverting to GRT moves against all of these qualities.
>
> Low revenue collection relative to costs doesn't seem to be stopping mass transit projects. Why would it be the main hang up for PRT? Perhaps over simplifying but I think the main barrier is the change required by institutions that don't know how to change, and they have rules, specifications, and policies in place designed to resist change.
>
> Dennis
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:30 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
>
>
> I wonder what the group thinks about the following thoughts that I have had for some time:
>
> 1) a major reason that PRT has not been adopted may be a revenue problem: that it is difficult to show a high expected ratio of revenue to capital and operating costs, making it unattractive to potential investors.
>
> 2) the revenue/cost ratio might be substantially increased by using GRT vehicles each of which at times might operate on demand and within a certain short length of time to carry only one person but which at most other times might carry 8, 10, 12 or even more people wanting to travel, each paying a fare.
>
> 3) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by allowing use of at least some on line stations and reducing the number of off-line stations each of which is expensive in requiring additional lengths of guideways, Y-junctions, etc.
>
> 4) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by dividing a system that serves a large urban area into loops each serving only a portion of the area and allowing transfers from one loop to another. (Any system that is built may also, of course, allow transfers to existing systems.)
>
> 5) One reason I don’t use public transit is not that I dislike traveling with other people. In fact, I rather like to travel with other people. I don’t think I am alone in having this feeling.
>
> 6) I wouldn’t object to encountering a number of stops in getting where I might want to go as long as the average number of stops is limited. I think that others may feel the same way.
>
> 7) I wouldn’t object to transfers if they were very limited in number and if each transfer didn’t take too long. I think that others may also feel the same way on this issue.
>
> 8) I would use a transit system, whether or not it might involve traveling with other people, if I could expect to get aboard a vehicle and start moving within a short time, be carried at reasonably fast speed when moving and encounter delays that are relatively few in number and duration. That is, I would use the system if I could expect to get where I want to go in a time that is of reasonably short total duration.
>
> 9) I think that it is possible that GRT systems might operate with low fares and yet produce high profits while serving the needs and desires of most people in any given area or region.
>
> 10) Is it really necessary or desirable that systems be "personal"? Is it really necessary or desirable that on line operations and transfers be completely avoided?
>
> Van Lund
>
> --
> 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.
> --
> 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.
Dennis Manning
Brad Templeton
PRT and rejected it said these things as their reason?
On Feb 27, 11:03 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> Dennis
>
> From: Dennis Manning
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:13 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
> Van:
>
> I hear what you are saying. You might consider that studies show PRT loads are spread more evenly through the day than mass transit. GRT while perhaps better sized during rush hour will be oversized for the other 20 or so hours. GRT trips will be slower with more stops especially if much disliked transfers are employed. That will lower demand. In short I don't think there's any cost savings overall, and I can see diminished service. I think lack of capacity on PRT is a red herring. A PRT system whose capacity is challenged will be a big money maker and the solution is to build more PRT.
>
> Dennis
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 8:39 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
> Dennis:
>
> I am not recommending conventional mass transit. I am recommending a system which is like proposed PRT systems in using vehicles which operate on demand and on dedicated elevated guideways. One difference is that each vehicle can carry a larger number of people (e.g. 8, 10 or 12 rather than 3 or 4); this will increase the cost of each vehicle to some limited degree, but decrease overall costs relative to fare revenue; the peak demand which occurs at rush hours can be met with a smaller total number of vehicles. Assuming that a certain fare will be charged per passenger, and when considering that in a PRT system, up to 3 or 4 passengers will want to travel together and/or to the same destination in one PRT vehicle that may oftentimes carry only one person, the ratio of revenue to vehicle costs with GRT vehicles should be much greater than with PRT vehicles. The cost of guideways may increase with the number passengers carried by each vehicle but not in direct proportion and probably not much at all.
>
> Two other differences is that some stations may be on-line and transfers may be allowed, both of which, I believe, should reduce costs without greatly reducing usage and revenue.
>
> You may be correct in saying that "Personal travel is by far the most desired", but as I said, I don't mind travel with other people and in fact like to do so and I believe that many other people may feel the same way. I know that some people get nostalgic about the good old days of train trave. Some people may feel safer when with others but, at the same time, no one should have to enter a GRT vehicle with others they don't trust for any reason. But I am certainly open to considering evidence as to the feelings of the general public on the personal travel issue.
>
> One other thing: I know that the public is going along with subsidies, but I think we will be much better off, and more likely to succeed, with systems that can operate at a profit and require no taxpayer support.
>
> Van
>
> I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 6:09:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
> I would skip to #10 and unequivocally say yes. Personal travel is by far the most desired. Any stepping back toward mass transit is a mistake. If you go this route at what point would it not make sense? If a little bit is good why not more?
>
> Smaller, lighter, faster, with greater accessibility is the way to go. Reverting to GRT moves against all of these qualities.
>
> Low revenue collection relative to costs doesn't seem to be stopping mass transit projects. Why would it be the main hang up for PRT? Perhaps over simplifying but I think the main barrier is the change required by institutions that don't know how to change, and they have rules, specifications, and policies in place designed to resist change.
>
> Dennis
>
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:30 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
>
>
> I wonder what the group thinks about the following thoughts that I have had for some time:
>
> 1) a major reason that PRT has not been adopted may be a revenue problem: that it is difficult to show a high expected ratio of revenue to capital and operating costs, making it unattractive to potential investors.
>
> 2) the revenue/cost ratio might be substantially increased by using GRT vehicles each of which at times might operate on demand and within a certain short length of time to carry only one person but which at most other times might carry 8, 10, 12 or even more people wanting to travel, each paying a fare.
>
> 3) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by allowing use of at least some on line stations and reducing the number of off-line stations each of which is expensive in requiring additional lengths of guideways, Y-junctions, etc.
>
> 4) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by dividing a system that serves a large urban area into loops each serving only a portion of the area and allowing transfers from one loop to another. (Any system that is built may also, of course, allow transfers to existing systems.)
>
> 5) One reason I don’t use public transit is not that I dislike traveling with other people. In fact, I rather like to travel with other people. I don’t think I am alone in having this feeling.
>
> 6) I wouldn’t object to encountering a number of stops in getting where I might want to go as long as the average number of stops is limited. I think that others may feel the same way.
>
> 7) I wouldn’t object to transfers if they were very limited in number and if each transfer didn’t take too long. I think that others may also feel the same way on this issue.
>
> 8) I would use a transit system, whether or not it might involve traveling with other people, if I could expect to get aboard a vehicle and start moving within a short time, be carried at reasonably fast speed when moving and encounter delays that are relatively few in number and duration. That is, I would use the system if I could expect to get where I want to go in a time that is of reasonably short total duration.
>
> 9) I think that it is possible that GRT systems might operate with low fares and yet produce high profits while serving the needs and desires of most people in any given area or region.
>
> 10) Is it really necessary or desirable that systems be "personal"? Is it really necessary or desirable that on line operations and transfers be completely avoided?
>
> Van Lund
>
> --
> 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.
> --
> 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.
> --
> 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
The moment you think of this you are designing an accident which will eventually happen. I could even think of sections which permit 2-way traffic, and it would work fine most of the time. Until something goes wrong, as it eventually will. No, Thanks. "Most of the time" just isn't good enough. Cheaper is desirable, but not at the expense of safety, or at the expense of throughput.
Design a line like this, and you will be hard pressed to get one vehicle per minuite ON THE WHOLE LINE. Just like a chain, you are limited by the slowest station (weakest link).
Jack Slade
Jack Slade
Jack Slade
--- On Mon, 2/28/11, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Robbert Lohmann
requires a whole lot of infrastructure at stations to check if people
have a valid ticket to actually ride the system. As such the costs for
stations are relatively high - but this is something every automated
system experiences (also GRT). Hence this is not going to generate any
savings - a different revenue model will! Why pay per passenger, while
the costs of the system could also be paid from parking fees in the
area the system operates. In this way you increase the parking (making
travel by car less attractive) and subsidise public transit (making it
more attractive).
B) A relatively small increase in volume comes at low costs. If I
compare the PRT and GRT systems we market, the costs difference
between the vehicles is marginal: they both require the same type of
components to operate automatically. GRT can be more expensive in the
infrastructure as result of a heavier of wider guide way, but this is
also influenced by local regulations with regard to the guide way - in
some cases the legal framework will actually require the guide way for
PRT to be just as heavy as GRT (unfortunately). In the end the
decision between the two is trade-off: the costs saved in the number
of vehicles is smaller or greater than the additional costs of the
guide way...
C) There is a difference between the passenger and the customer. To me
the customer is the operator or the land developer (city) where the
system is being installed. The user (passenger) is often perceived to
have a very strong preference for personal travel (note that this is
contradicted by reseach of BAA for the Heathrow application where they
need to stop people from sharing and the experience at Masdar where
the average occupancy is 2 passengers), but this interest might not
necessarily align with the interest of the customer (who wants best
operating margin at an acceptable investment cost).
Our own research shows that what a user want is 'highest service
level'. When you translate this it typically means 'least time spend
travelling' (which is logical: I also am willing to pay more for a
flight if it means I am flying direct). In a PRT system this
translates to ride sharing in peak hours (as waiting for a personal
vehicle would increase my travel time), while in off-peak hours it
means direct departure (as waiting for other passengers increases
travel time).
All systems serve their own niche. I am convinced PRT and GRT can co-
exist in one system, with PRT serving taxi-like trips and GRT serving
the main arteries of the network (connection between locations shared
by a larger number of travellers). The technology allows for the
vehicles to have the same speed profiles, so there are no technical
limitations.
Just my 2 cents.
Robbert
eph
PRT should be a premium service with a premium fare covering it's
expense.
Buses/trains can be used to move masses at peak times instead of
trying to create a low-fare GRT/PRT mixed system.
PRT can be used (with a regular transit fare) at off-peak/low demand
times, which means buses don't run empty and transit users get a taste
of premium/luxury travel.
Cargo/freight should also be exploited on the system to maximize
guideway utility.
F.
Kirston Henderson
The difference between the cost and size of a guideway able to carry small GRT vehicle able to carry up to perhaps 10 or 11 passengers and a PRT vehicle which really should be able to carry four to six passengers is entirely trivial. The cost might be reduced very slightly if you want to limit the capacity of the PRT vehicle to only a single passenger, but I suspect that the number of users would drop rather sharply. |
Dennis Manning
You might have something regarding a high price to ride PRT - something less
than a taxi but higher than typical mass transit fares. As to your question
I'll give two extremes - Fresno and Chengdu, China.
In Fresno I suggested that it was possible that a PRT supplier would pay for
all capital and operating costs if the city would negotiate who carries the
risk if revenues fall short of providing the supplier with a reasonable
return. The city guy was hesitant. He was worried the ridership wouldn't be
high enough..
In Chengdu the transportation official immediately stated PRT couldn't
possibly have enough capacity. I suggested two things. PRT would be a much
needed new layer of capacity, and if it was chronically over loaded then the
fares could be raised for significant profit. His response was, "that
wouldn't be fair". He was clearly most concerned about capacity.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:18 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
> Really? This is what cities are saying? Which cities that considered
>> 5) One reason I don�t use public transit is not that I dislike traveling
>> with other people. In fact, I rather like to travel with other people. I
>> don�t think I am alone in having this feeling.
>>
>> 6) I wouldn�t object to encountering a number of stops in getting where I
>> might want to go as long as the average number of stops is limited. I
>> think that others may feel the same way.
>>
>> 7) I wouldn�t object to transfers if they were very limited in number and
>> if each transfer didn�t take too long. I think that others may also feel
Jerry Roane
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.
Jerry Schneider
>Might as well post my thoughts on this (again).
>
>PRT should be a premium service with a premium fare covering it's
>expense.
And should the poorer segments of the population be taxed to pay for
its construction?
If public money is required for construction, will this suggestion
get widespread public support?
>Buses/trains can be used to move masses at peak times instead of
>trying to create a low-fare GRT/PRT mixed system.
>PRT can be used (with a regular transit fare) at off-peak/low demand
>times, which means buses don't run empty and transit users get a taste
>of premium/luxury travel.
Aren't the working poor usually required to travel during peak periods?
>Cargo/freight should also be exploited on the system to maximize
>guideway utility.
Agreed
Kirston Henderson
KirstonI disagree with your assertion that the cost of the system and guideway is trivial between GRT and weight limited 4-passenger cars. Trivial of course is the key word. In your system the lower end is over-designed and it may be true that in your version that what you say is true but without that constraint on the issue the guideway beam strength has a cubed function in the form of the equation so adding a little means a lot for guideway strength.
eph
On Feb 28, 12:06 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> At 06:21 AM 2/28/2011, you wrote:
>
> >Might as well post my thoughts on this (again).
>
> >PRT should be a premium service with a premium fare covering it's
> >expense.
>
> And should the poorer segments of the population be taxed to pay for
> its construction?
> If public money is required for construction, will this suggestion
> get widespread public support?
stadiums get funded but not everyone can afford to go to a game. I
think if the system covers all it's costs, it is easier to convince.
Adding GRT so that everyone can use it at a lower fare might just turn
the system into a bus ride on guideway with little extra value
anyway. It may also take some of the lustre off of PRT rides.
Taking public transit at peak times is usually pretty good as far as
service levels go. Off-peak public transit is brutal and wasteful.
Why not combine the strengths of both systems?
>
> >Buses/trains can be used to move masses at peak times instead of
> >trying to create a low-fare GRT/PRT mixed system.
> >PRT can be used (with a regular transit fare) at off-peak/low demand
> >times, which means buses don't run empty and transit users get a taste
> >of premium/luxury travel.
>
> Aren't the working poor usually required to travel during peak periods?
car. Why not give them the option to use a nice traffic free, non-
polluting ride in a PRT pod at a commensurate cost? You can look at
it as the wealthy subsidizing premium off-peak service for the poor if
you like.
Jerry Schneider
>On Feb 28, 12:06 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> > At 06:21 AM 2/28/2011, you wrote:
> >
> > >Might as well post my thoughts on this (again).
> >
> > >PRT should be a premium service with a premium fare covering it's
> > >expense.
> >
> > And should the poorer segments of the population be taxed to pay for
> > its construction?
> > If public money is required for construction, will this suggestion
> > get widespread public support?
>
>I don't know. Roads get money and not everyone owns a car. Sports
>stadiums get funded but not everyone can afford to go to a game. I
>think if the system covers all it's costs, it is easier to convince.
>Adding GRT so that everyone can use it at a lower fare might just turn
>the system into a bus ride on guideway with little extra value
>anyway. It may also take some of the lustre off of PRT rides.
>
>Taking public transit at peak times is usually pretty good as far as
>service levels go. Off-peak public transit is brutal and wasteful.
>Why not combine the strengths of both systems?
Yes, I agree -- we need to invent ways to operate both PRT and GRT vehicles
on the same guideway in response to demand variations - and variations in
people's ability to pay fares and taxes. In the US, poor people are a
fast growing part
of the market. Cabintaxi's experience should be relevant. How do their guideway
costs compare with current PRT systems? I wish I knew.
Is there something wrong with a bus ride in a small bus on a guideway during
peak periods when groups with similar travel requirements are most likely to
need service. If wait times and travel times were not substantially
greater for GRT
travel, but fares were lower, what would the tradeoff look like? Depends on
what "substantially" means to the people involved and how much different
the fare would be - might even be free to bring demand down more rapidly to
levels more easily accommodated by PRT capabilities.
> >
> > >Buses/trains can be used to move masses at peak times instead of
> > >trying to create a low-fare GRT/PRT mixed system.
> > >PRT can be used (with a regular transit fare) at off-peak/low demand
> > >times, which means buses don't run empty and transit users get a taste
> > >of premium/luxury travel.
> >
> > Aren't the working poor usually required to travel during peak periods?
>
>The well-off also tend to travel during the peak periods but do so by
>car. Why not give them the option to use a nice traffic free, non-
>polluting ride in a PRT pod at a commensurate cost? You can look at
>it as the wealthy subsidizing premium off-peak service for the poor if
>you like.
>
> >
> > >Cargo/freight should also be exploited on the system to maximize
> > >guideway utility.
> >
> > Agreed
>
>--
>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.
eph
GRT at peak times takes PRT fares away when they are most valuable.
Introducing GRT into a system can increase costs since stations must
be larger, a different vehicle class might be needed and scheduling
these different class vehicles can cause extra problems. So I think
we disagree here.
Why would I ditch my car for a PRT solution if I can't get a PRT
vehicle at peak times when it would be most valuable? Wouldn't I just
use my car?
I'm not saying a GRT/PRT system can't work, but if the only market
share you gain is from regular transit, the only winning argument
there is that it will be cheaper. Can that argument be made
convincingly enough to get buyers?
F.
Jerry Roane
Brad Templeton
collection and barrier systems at the stations. It's not like card
and ticket readers are that expensive and can't go in pods. You get
into a pod, and unless you pay, it doesn't go. How complex is
that? The station is just a platform that pods can dock at. Sensors
that can detect people who try to walk onto the track are not that
hard either, probably cheaper than fancy double sliding doors.
In-vehicle fare collection does make it slightly harder to charge more
for multiple passengers (and thus to do GRT) but even that's doable
(the seats in my car certainly know if somebody is sitting in them.)
But I think there should not be much more charge, if any, for extra
passengers in PRT. (You can also measure the weight of the vehicle,
or even the electricity used for a given segment compared to reference
values for that.)
Kirston Henderson
KirstonOK I can see that if you are willing to let GRT be bumpy. It is not ultimate strength of the beam that dictates required beam strength but rather beam defection is chosen by the designer based on an assumption of what might be acceptable ride quality. Of course guideway will be much smoother than asphalt in all cases so your GRT vehicle may have enough suspension travel and advanced dampening to overcome the additional beam sag per span.That said it still does not change the other problems with GRT being a preference of someone other than the end user and what they might want. If people wanted GRT then hitchhiking would be everywhere and everyone would be driving a cool 1970s conversion van. I had a cool 1970s conversion van in the 1980s. It wasn't as cool being ten years old at the time and the fad faded. GRT if built I predict will fade fast and vehicles with closer to 1.3 seats than 10 will be the new vogue. Fads come and go.
Jack Slade
|
>>>>>Off-peak public transit is brutal and wasteful.
Why not combine the strengths of both systems?<<<< |
Let's get into, once more, the PRT lack of capacity, and compare it to a GRT with online stations, as has been suggested. Somebody has to give me a capacity estimate of the GRT for me to be able to do this. It has to include how long each car stops at each station, or the comparison is useless.
However, here is part of what I would expect to find. Minimum stop will have to be 10 seconds, or longer....come to a stop, people alight, accelerate to speed.
In that 10 seconds 10 PRT cars at one-second spacing would have passed that station with people who are on their way to other places.
Where do you get it that the GRT will be moving more people? It may look that way to an observer, but it is not FACT.
Add one slow person, at any station, and the WHOLE LINE has to stop a few extra seconds becaause nobody can pass, just like when a streetcar stops. Who is kidding who? This would be unworkable.
Jack Slade
|
Kirston Henderson
Jack Slade
These times determine the PPH throughput of the whole line, and I have doubts that 10 second stops can be done at all. Somebody will have to do the math to convince me. My calculator is not often wrong, and I get:
12 passengers per vehicle, 6 vehicles per minuite = 7200 PPH
That is the same as PRT with single passengers at 1/2 second spacing, with everybody seated.
If you tell me that I am not sure of being able to do this with PRT I will agree with you, because I want to start at 1-second spacing. The point is that I don't think 10-second spacing can be done with GRT, so that big impressive guideway and bigger vehicles will accomplish nothing other than turning people off, and spoiling a good plan.
We talked about this last week, where you go in with a good plan and then somebody else comes in with a bigger bus and the City Councils go for it because they understand busses. They are just spoilers.
Jack Slade
--- On Tue, 3/1/11, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:
Robbert Lohmann
A GRT vehicle is 6 meters long accomodates 20+ passengers.
The average occupancy of a PRT vehicle in a 'normal' city application
is likely to be similar to the average occupancy of a car. Hence you
end up with 1,2 passengers per car. Note that in specific applications
such as an airport (Heathrow) or a University (Masdar), the average
occupancy is likely to be higher, especially in the stage where there
is a limited number of destinations (ride sharing more likely, but
unfortunately the limited number of destinations is also a great
argument for using GRT rather than PRT as it is not a network
configuration). So let's agree on an average occupancy of 1,5
passengers (better than the car). Which still is 37,5%!
For a GRT vehicle the average occupancy will be much higher. What we
are seeing at Rivium (a business park) is that during rush hour on
average (!) 18 people get in, with sometimes more than 20 people per
trip. Let's state to be on the safe side that the average occupancy is
going to be only 15 passengers (75%).
Now the trick is configuration: GRT is at a big disadvantage when
having to stop at every station, while PRT is at big disadvantage as a
result of the average occupancy. Grouping people at stations with the
same or similar destinations will actually help for both! It will
decrease the number of stops for a GRT system, while it will increase
the average occupancy of PRT. And note that GRT stations can be
created off-line just as easily as PRT stations - so that's not an
argument to use in the discussion.
The argument that people want private travel is simply not proven in
practice! This might be due to the fact that people have gotten used
to traveling together, but FACT is that people will share. And this is
the basis of the focus on ensuring shortest trip time between home and
office (or other locations for travel) is what's most important to
people.
Also FACT is that my customer is not the user and the user is not
going to pay to install a system (people never have). The expect the
system to be supplied (road and gas stations) and might by a product
or a ticket to use the system...
Robbert
On 28 feb, 23:55, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
Kirston Henderson
A PRT vehicle is 4 meters long accomodates 4 passengers.A GRT vehicle is 6 meters long accomodates 20+ passengers.
Jack Slade
Last week we were dealing with 10 or 12 passenger cars, and now we have 20+ passengers. Are we in a different argument, or are you just changing numbers to prove the bigger-is-better theory that has been proven wrong for 100 years. Thats right....trains and busses failed that long ago as soon as cars gave people a way to travel without rubbing elbows.
If I were sure of a reliable way to group people together, or that people wanted to be that way, then I could fill all seats on my PRT car and carry 28,000 passengers per hour, so the only reason for GRT would still be to create a job for a driver. Thats right....when you crowd 20 people together you need an authority figure to control drunks, punks, and people who are just born rude and ugly.
It may be just as easy to build offline stations, but: That was one of the ways given to make GRT cheaper than PRT. Big stations costs more than small stations if both are offline. So much for that piece of B/S. Selective committees would be fairer if the people with the opposing bids were there in the room, so that this kind of red herring could be exposed on the spot.
It is too repetitive to debunk each point, as this has been done on this list back to day one, and still every few years somebody goes back to the same surmise....bigger is better. Man has been to the moon ( there are some who even keep trying to refute this), we have movies of Mars, and we still crawl around the surface of Cities at average speeds of 8 or 10 Mph. How can we change this when this same useless argument keeps coming back?
Jack Slade
|
|
|
Robbert Lohmann
You have such a pleasant way of putting things...
Note that I never change my figures. What I quote are the actual per
vehicle capacities of my system.
And I would love to go into this argument with you in a room people
actually knowledgeable. With all the experience we have with the
systems installed and all of the research and engineering we have
done, we have sufficient scientific facts to back up our calculations,
simulations and resulting vision and statements.
I am NOT even making the argument that bigger is better! The argument
I am making is that you need to be realistic about what to apply where
- in some cases, depending on the application characteristics, GRT
will be the most suited solution...
And I certainly don't like to pretend PRT is the holy grail of
transportation, capable of carrying 20.000+ passengers per hour, as
this is certainly contributing to experts and decision makers
dismissing PRT as fantasy.
Let's be realistic and focus on those applications where we can make a
start with realizing systems now, with current technology. And, if a
different system (such as GRT or a bus) is better suited, I will be
the first to inform the customer of this.
I sincerely wish you good luck in the development and marketing of
your system. I obviously differ in opinion and approach and will avoid
raising a discussion on this with you in the future, allowing us to co-
exist on the list.
Robbert
Jack Slade
As a matter of fact, I did take the Carnegie course...there are just some people who don't respond in the proper way, so I don't always use it. Tell them they are wrong, and they keep insisting they are right, and it can go on forever.
So there is something wrong if I quote system capacity with all seats filled, as you do for GRT, trains, and bus systems? I did not quote it, I just pointed out that it could only be done if people with same destinations can be grouped together WHICH YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR POSTING, REMEMBER?
There is no such thing as a room full of experts. There are rooms full of people who have learned about trains and busses, trying to snowball groups of Councillors with even less training. If there was such a thing as a BA in transportation do you think such a course would trump my 27 years of transportation experience? If you don't think Air Traffic Control is transportation, just tell me what it is. |
|
-- On Wed, 3/2/11, Robbert Lohmann <rob...@2getthere.eu> wrote:
|
|
Michael Weidler
| Didn't we just go over this crap 3 or 4 months ago? --- On Sun, 2/27/11, van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
| The O&M of the two systems ought to be pretty much the same. How is PRT more expensive to operate? |
--- On Sun, 2/27/11, van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net> wrote: |
|
Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 4:39 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
Kirston Henderson
1) a major reason that PRT has not been adopted may be a revenue problem: that it is difficult to show a high expected ratio of revenue to capital and operating costs, making it unattractive to potential investors.
2) the revenue/cost ratio might be substantially increased by using GRT vehicles each of which at times might operate on demand and within a certain short length of time to carry only one person but which at most other times might carry 8, 10, 12 or even more people wanting to travel, each paying a fare.
3) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by allowing use of at least some on line stations and reducing the number of off-line stations each of which is expensive in requiring additional lengths of guideways, Y-junctions, etc.
4) the revenue/cost ratio might also be substantially increased by dividing a system that serves a large urban area into loops each serving only a portion of the area and allowing transfers from one loop to another. (Any system that is built may also, of course, allow transfers to existing systems.)
5) One reason I don’t use public transit is not that I dislike traveling with other people. In fact, I rather like to travel with other people. I don’t think I am alone in having this feeling.
6) I wouldn’t object to encountering a number of stops in getting where I might want to go as long as the average number of stops is limited. I think that others may feel the same way.
7) I wouldn’t object to transfers if they were very limited in number and if each transfer didn’t take too long. I think that others may also feel the same way on this issue.
8) I would use a transit system, whether or not it might involve traveling with other people, if I could expect to get aboard a vehicle and start moving within a short time, be carried at reasonably fast speed when moving and encounter delays that are relatively few in number and duration. That is, I would use the system if I could expect to get where I want to go in a time that is of reasonably short total duration.
9) I think that it is possible that GRT systems might operate with low fares and yet produce high profits while serving the needs and desires of most people in any given area or region.
10) Is it really necessary or desirable that systems be "personal"? Is it really necessary or desirable that on line operations and transfers be completely avoided?
Van Lund
van...@comcast.net
Jack Slade
Yes, you could be wromg. You have stated that you don'r use public transit, for a couple of reasons. When I first started thinking about improving the current transportation mess, the first thing I did was :
1. Make a lisr of ALL the reasons why I did not like transit
2. Make a similiar list of things I don't like about automobiles,
And then began to think of ways to avoid all these things I did not like.
If you make a similar list I will be surprised if you do not reach some of the same conclusions. You do seem like a thinking person.
Afterwards, I made up some general rules of things to avoid. To keep it short, they are generally the things that make existing travel slow and nerve-wracking, such as:
1. NO level crossings
2. NO crowded vehicles
3. NO online stations
4. NO at-grade insrallations
There were others, but, when you think about it, I think you will find that if you consider changing any item, then you are doing away with at least a couple of the definitions of a true PRT system. How many points of the definition can you change and still have an effective system, that still works well?
I don't know, and I doubt that anybody does. The point is that, if you are presented with a plan that should work, should you immediately begin to think of ways to change it? If so, you had better be sure that what you are suggesting is an improvement, not a system-killer.
Consider what the Town of Daventry wants:
To begin, vehicles for an at-grade system are not available, unless you build a wall along both sides of the paths, and
The ststem can never be expanded to cover a bigger area...crossing streets is impossible, and
Vehicles are not yet available that can cross streets safely, or operate without the guard wall.
This makes it a system-killer.
The objection to overhead guideways? I don't know for certain. I do know that I have never looked out my bedroom window, and have never met anybody who gives a hoot about what is above his head in a City.
Jack Slade
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net> wrote:
> From: van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 5:38 AM
> #yiv1282627129 p
> {margin:0;}The
> operating cost per passenger carried is obviously greater
> for PRT.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Weidler"
> <pstr...@yahoo.com>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 2:08:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
>
>
>
>
> The O&M of the two systems ought to be
> pretty much the same. How is PRT more expensive to operate?
>
> --- On Sun, 2/27/11, van...@comcast.net
> <van...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 4:39 PM
>
>
>
> #yiv1282627129 p {margin:0;}
>
>
> Walter:
>
> I am willing to travel with others and encounter delays
> if overall travel time is not excessive. I don't
> ride mass transit because it takes too long to get where I
> want to go and is too much of a hassle. I think many
> others don't ride mass transit for the same
> reasons. I also think that GRT while not perfect could
> satisfy my desires and those of many others and also make a
> profit with reasonalble fares and require no subsidy.
> I also think that potentially high PRT costs may not
> only discourage approval by transportation agencies but
> may require fares that are so high as to
> discourage ridership, revenue and profits so as to make
> PRT unattractive to private investors.
> I could be wrong.
>
> Van
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "WALTER BREWER"
> <catc...@verizon.net>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 2:49:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
>
> #yiv1282627129 P {
> MARGIN:0px;}
eph
satisfy your criteria, but the cost is so high, they aren't
practical. For some, cost trumps everything, so none of your criteria
would apply to them.
As to overhead wires, they are being buried all over the place at
greater expense. I have posted examples before. People do care about
their skyline, but high-rises do go up and so do roads and tracks if
necessary.
F.
On Mar 7, 1:31 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Yes, you could be wromg. You have stated that you don'r use public transit, for a couple of reasons. When I first started thinking about improving the current transportation mess, the first thing I did was :
>
> 1. Make a lisr of ALL the reasons why I did not like transit
> 2. Make a similiar list of things I don't like about automobiles,
>
> And then began to think of ways to avoid all these things I did not like.
> If you make a similar list I will be surprised if you do not reach some of the same conclusions. You do seem like a thinking person.
>
> Afterwards, I made up some general rules of things to avoid. To keep it short, they are generally the things that make existing travel slow and nerve-wracking, such as:
>
> 1. NO level crossings
>
> 2. NO crowded vehicles
>
> 3. NO online stations
>
> 4. NO at-grade insrallations
>
> There were others, but, when you think about it, I think you will find that if you consider changing any item, then you are doing away with at least a couple of the definitions of a true PRT system. How many points of the definition can you change and still have an effective system, that still works well?
>
> I don't know, and I doubt that anybody does. The point is that, if you are presented with a plan that should work, should you immediately begin to think of ways to change it? If so, you had better be sure that what you are suggesting is an improvement, not a system-killer.
>
> Consider what the Town of Daventry wants:
>
> To begin, vehicles for an at-grade system are not available, unless you build a wall along both sides of the paths, and
>
> The ststem can never be expanded to cover a bigger area...crossing streets is impossible, and
>
> Vehicles are not yet available that can cross streets safely, or operate without the guard wall.
>
> This makes it a system-killer.
>
> The objection to overhead guideways? I don't know for certain. I do know that I have never looked out my bedroom window, and have never met anybody who gives a hoot about what is above his head in a City.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> > From: vanl...@comcast.net <vanl...@comcast.net>
> > Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
> > To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 5:38 AM
> > #yiv1282627129 p
> > {margin:0;}The
> > operating cost per passenger carried is obviously greater
> > for PRT.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Weidler"
> > <pstran...@yahoo.com>
> > To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 2:08:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
> > The O&M of the two systems ought to be
> > pretty much the same. How is PRT more expensive to operate?
>
> > <vanl...@comcast.net> wrote:
van...@comcast.net
Jack: I think you misunderstand my message and I agree with most of what you are saying. The system I have in mind is much like a PRT system, differing in using some larger vehicles that may carry eight, ten or more passengers. It will have NO level crossings, NO crowded vehicles, mostly off-line stations and NO at-grade installations.
I do not think a ten passenger cabin carrying ten people is any more "crowded" than a four passenger cabin carrying four people.
I would tolerate some on line stations if they didn't slow things down too much and especially if they resulted in reduced fares and otherwise made possible the building of a system which might not otherwise exist. I do think a system is more likely to be built if it is profitable and that potential fares and revenues are important. Also, if system is built along the lines that I have in mind, it could certainly be operated in part as a PRT system and quite possibly lead to building of "pure" PRT systems.
Thanks for your comments.
Van
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Slade" <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2011 12:31:22 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
Yes, you could be wromg. You have stated that you don'r use public transit, for a couple of reasons. When I first started thinking about improving the current transportation mess, the first thing I did was :
1. Make a lisr of ALL the reasons why I did not like transit
2. Make a similiar list of things I don't like about automobiles,
And then began to think of ways to avoid all these things I did not like.
If you make a similar list I will be surprised if you do not reach some of the same conclusions. You do seem like a thinking person.
Afterwards, I made up some general rules of things to avoid. To keep it short, they are generally the things that make existing travel slow and nerve-wracking, such as:
1. NO level crossings
2. NO crowded vehicles
3. NO online stations
4. NO at-grade insrallations
There were others, but, when you think about it, I think you will find that if you consider changing any item, then you are doing away with at least a couple of the definitions of a true PRT system. How many points of the definition can you change and still have an effective system, that still works well?
I don't know, and I doubt that anybody does. The point is that, if you are presented with a plan that should work, should you immediately begin to think of ways to change it? If so, you had better be sure that what you are suggesting is an improvement, not a system-killer.
Consider what the Town of Daventry wants:
To begin, vehicles for an at-grade system are not available, unless you build a wall along both sides of the paths, and
The ststem can never be expanded to cover a bigger area...crossing streets is impossible, and
Vehicles are not yet available that can cross streets safely, or operate without the guard wall.
This makes it a system-killer.
The objection to overhead guideways? I don't know for certain. I do know that I have never looked out my bedroom window, and have never met anybody who gives a hoot about what is above his head in a City.
Jack Slade
--- On Mon, 3/7/11, van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net> wrote:
> From: van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 5:38 AM
> #yiv1282627129 p
> {margin:0;}The
> operating cost per passenger carried is obviously greater
> for PRT.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Weidler"
> <pstr...@yahoo.com>
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 2:08:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
>
>
>
>
> The O&M of the two systems ought to be
> pretty much the same. How is PRT more expensive to operate?
>
> --- On Sun, 2/27/11, van...@comcast.net
> <van...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> From: van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net>
Dennis Manning
Brad Templeton
request being done at the station. That's because most of these
designs started in the era before everybody had a mobile phone. If
you have a GRT, and you design instead so that people can say they
want a vehicle on their phone as they begin their walk to the station,
it opens up some options, including the ability for them to request a
private vehicle at extra cost. You don't have to have a private pod
waiting everywhere, with that few minutes notice you can move pods to
stations to be there by the time the passenger gets to the station.
(You can also allocate GRT pods to private use at certain times.)
As long as the stations are offline, the person can thus pay extra for
a PRT ride. And also know before they leave if they will get one.
(For example, if one can't be made available, they might decide to go
with a car or taxi if it's important to them.)
On Mar 7, 9:58 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On this PRT/GRT issue the Morgantown experience might be instructive. MT has a PRT operation capability but it isn't used. They determined that when demand was low the cost of allowing single passengers a non-stop ride was higher than running occasional group rides. In high demand mode the system doesn't have enough vehicles or short enough headways for PRT mode operation. So in either case PRT mode isn't used.
>
> This of course says little about how PRT would work with more vehicles, shorter headways, and far lower guideway costs. Also PRT for less cost could easily provide more stations. The MT GRT stations are monsters.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> > From: vanl...@comcast.net <vanl...@comcast.net>
> > To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> > Date: Monday, March 7, 2011, 5:38 AM
> > #yiv1282627129 p
> > {margin:0;}The
> > operating cost per passenger carried is obviously greater
> > for PRT.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Weidler"
> > <pstran...@yahoo.com>
> > To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2011 2:08:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: [t-i] REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
> > The O&M of the two systems ought to be
> > pretty much the same. How is PRT more expensive to operate?
>
>
> read more »
Jerry Schneider
>Almost all PRT proposals I have seen have involved having vehicle
>request being done at the station. That's because most of these
>designs started in the era before everybody had a mobile phone. If
>you have a GRT, and you design instead so that people can say they
>want a vehicle on their phone as they begin their walk to the station,
>it opens up some options, including the ability for them to request a
>private vehicle at extra cost. You don't have to have a private pod
>waiting everywhere, with that few minutes notice you can move pods to
>stations to be there by the time the passenger gets to the station.
>(You can also allocate GRT pods to private use at certain times.)
>
>As long as the stations are offline, the person can thus pay extra for
>a PRT ride. And also know before they leave if they will get one.
>(For example, if one can't be made available, they might decide to go
>with a car or taxi if it's important to them.)
And, you could use the same technology to find groups of people who can
make use of GRT service - by quickly finding routes and stops that
will accommodate
a particular group and setting criteria for a load factor and a time
limit for departure with
a suboptimal load if it's not achieved. For example, a GRT vehicle
with 8 seats will
not depart with fewer than four passengers and a wait time of 5 or
less minutes providing
less than 3 stops enroute.
Add the transfer option at the stops for members of the group
and the load factor might become easier to satisfy.
Of course, you would need to have numerous passengers arriving in a fairly
constant stream. Would it work? Beyond my intuition but simulation experiments
could be helpful in assessing various operating and revenue (fare) strategies.
The ability to call GRT vehicles from nearby storage depots would
also be helpful.
As would a good empty vehicle redistribution strategy and more
simulation experiments.
Dennis Manning
Good thinking. I've thought for sometime given the proliferation of mobile
phones that the bulk of riders shouldn't have to bother with paper tickets
and the like. Just get in the vehicle, make destination choice (or vice
versa), and be on your way. Advanced requests for a ride, as you say, can
speed up delivery of vehicles thereby reducing waiting time.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 10:38 AM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
> Almost all PRT proposals I have seen have involved having vehicle
>> > 5) One reason I don�t use public transit is not that I
>> > dislike traveling with other people. In fact, I rather like
>> > to travel with other people. I don�t think I am alone in
>> > having this feeling.
>>
>> > 6) I wouldn�t object to encountering a number of stops
>> > in getting where I might want to go as long as the average
>> > number of stops is limited. I think that others may feel the
>> > same way.
>>
>> > 7) I wouldn�t object to transfers if they were very
>> > limited in number and if each transfer didn�t take too
>> read more �
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
Brad Templeton
summoning happening by cell phone so the PRT designs which put
controls and payment in stations have made little sense to me. I
mean, you have to have it, for people who forgot to use their phone or
who for some reason don't have one, but you want to assume that's a
minority of passengers.
How much advance warning you get will vary a lot. But you can give
better service to those who give more advanced warning, and thus
strongly encourage people to remember to run the transport app before
they leave, rather than as they approach the station. In fact, in
many cases you can get hours of approximate advanced warning. (In this
case a person might say, "I will be out of the move around 9:30, and
close to that time I will give a more accurate prediction." This can
even be automatic -- the phone can notice the person started walking.
When you have this much knowledge you can schedule better and make do
with fewer pods, and also schedule GRTs as suggested if capacity is
not enough with PRTs. You can also make these actual reservations
(with a cost for no-show) and also tell people if they can' t get a
reservation at a given time, but can get one later for load balancing
at rush hour or stadium-emptying time.
I will go so far as to advance this: By the time any significant PRT
deployment is built, smartphone adoption will be so high that a PRT
design that doesn't presume most people will want to do things on
their phones (including pay) is going to be correct.
On Mar 7, 11:33 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
> Good thinking. I've thought for sometime given the proliferation of mobile
> phones that the bulk of riders shouldn't have to bother with paper tickets
> and the like. Just get in the vehicle, make destination choice (or vice
> versa), and be on your way. Advanced requests for a ride, as you say, can
> speed up delivery of vehicles thereby reducing waiting time.
>
> Dennis
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> read more »
Jerry Roane
> ...
>
> read more »
Robbert Lohmann
Like your thinking and of course integration of such devices is
possible. The catch however, is that you also need to accomodate
people that don't have a phone or that are visitors (tourists) only.
And think about the different age groups (grandma and grandpa should
also be able to use it). The most difficult thing in the design is to
cater to the needs of all user groups - or at least almost all user
groups - without incurring huge costs in infrastructure at the
stations.
Personally I love smart cards and phones as a way to indicate
destination. At the same time you have to think though about the
implications this has for certain users - this is a fun part of the
process but you need to do it right.
Also destination selection outside the vehicle is certainly possible,
but you will need to think about what happens if people 'forget' and
get in the vehicle immediately. If this happens too often, this
becomes a delay in the station, decreasing throughput per hour for the
station and the capacity achieved with the current fleet of vehicles.
How do you accomodate this? We have made all these considerations -
again, that to me, was the most fun part of the whole process!
Robbert
Brad Templeton
else is in the pod, and a small tablet like device in the pod, if not
a full screen, makes sense for other reasons.
It is an issue if your stations are "blocking" in that the first pod
stops others from leaving. In that case, you do need them not to sit
and fuss and pick. If docking stations are a scarce resource, this
is also an issue. So you might want to have a control console in the
station (on on the ground before they climb the stairs, to give some
small advance.
I think that it's OK to give better service to those who order in
advance, even 5 minutes in advance. The tourists will learn to do it
on their mobile or accept the wait. Yes, today tourists are vastly
overcharged for data service, but again, by the time any large PRT is
deployed, I think this problem will fade. Give them free wifi in
station, at least for contact to the system. (smartphones don't yet
understand the idea of a limited offer wifi, that would be a good idea
for them.)
While you do need some interface in the station, if most of the users
are pre-ordering on their phones (for the many benefits) it means you
need fewer consoles in a station, perhaps only one.
In a number of stations, you can also accept destination after leaving
the station, though there is a time limit because soon an important
turn will be missed making the trip longer. On the other hand an
interface where you have a map of the city and with touchscreen zoom
in on your destination station would let you work out general
direction immediately and refine it later.
Jerry Roane
Robbert Lohmann
In fear of making a controversial statement, but: offering better
service to those who order up front, will deteriorate the performance
of the system as a whole!
I'll back the comment up: if you allow people to reserve the vehicle
up front (even when it is only 5 minutes), you know that what will
happen is that the person coming to the station (e.g. a businessman
gathering his things before heading home) will be delayed for whatever
reason (bathroom brake, quickly talking to a colleague or getting a
call on the mobile which requires immediate attention). The delay he
experiences, means that the vehicle he reservered is sitting in a
berth waiting for him to arrive. The consequences are:
- the berth is unavailable to other vehicles longer (the duration of
the delay), resulting in more berths being required to achieve the
station throughput
- the berth is unavailable to other vehicles longer (the duration of
the delay), resulting in more berths being required which results in a
larger footprint of the station and more capital and maintenance costs
- the vehicle is unavailable to other passengers, thus reducing the
number of passengers the system can transport (or requiring additional
vehicles to be added to the system to achieve the capacity needed).
An interface in the station to reserve transportation is not required
when the system is programmed such that it will always ensure that at
least one vehicle is at the station or on its way to the station. The
screens we have at Masdar are for information only - there is no
possiblility to 'order' a vehicle other than contacting the operator
through the intercom. The information screen does display how many
vehicles are arriving in the next 2 minutes.
As you can tell the consequences of choices can be quite severe - it
will all depend on the discipline of the passenger. A delay of 30
seconds might be acceptable, but 1 minute or more would most certainly
be not. You can build in a timer for when the reservation is cancelled
(and still charge the passenger for the trip), but on the other hand a
high-frequency service should not need reservations! Knowing that a
vehicle will be there when you arrive at the station, or is
forthcoming shortly, decreases the need for reserving a vehicle.
@Jerry
Do you mean 'customer' or 'user'? Or do you consider the user your
customer? Which means you will be operating the system as well? I
agree with you the user and his requirements and desires are
important, but we need to realize that when we are selling the system,
it is not the user who is buying it...
And I'll argue that there is a difference between providing a good
service and the best service. Realizing that the enemy of the best is
the good, I would turn this around and state that if you can realize a
good service at reasonable costs, but need significantly increase
costs to provide the best service, there is an argument to be made to
be content with good service (initially).
Robbert
Jack Slade
Jack Slade
--- On Wed, 3/9/11, Robbert Lohmann <rob...@2getthere.eu> wrote:
> From: Robbert Lohmann <rob...@2getthere.eu>
> Subject: [t-i] Re: REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
Brad Templeton
know the minimum time it will take the customer to reach the station,
knowing as we will their location and, after a few iterations, their
walking speed, even their walking speed on that route.
Further, the customer, once they have made the request, can regularly
update you with their position as they walk.
The pod need not enter the station and take a berth until the customer
is seen walking up to the station. Yes, a pod is allocated to them
in the system, but that's actually better than having to keep every
station ready with fresh pods. If they are walking to the station,
and you are watching them walk, you don't have to hard-reserve the pod
until they are closer to the station.
If pods are at a high premium, you can go further and say, "this
reservation is only for 5 minutes" and if they pause to talk to
somebody, and are no longer on track for on-time arrival at the
station, warn them, or just cancel their reservation. Then they have
to wait like anybody who did a summons at the station.
If pods are plentiful you can keep extending their reservation as they
take their random walk.
You can of course continue to follow a "keep one pod at station"
strategy. Requests in advance will tell you when you will in fact
need 2, or 5 or 10, and give you the time to make that happen. It
also allows the opportunity to offer "perfect GRT" when you notice
that more than one independent passenger wants to go from A to B at
the same time. People accepting perfect GRT can get a discount for
doing so. Such GRT can increase capacity at peak load times
significantly. You can also do very good GRT, where the route to
one person's destination passes by the other's, and the first
passenger accepts a short delay in exchange for a discount. (This
presumes random departure stations.)
It's also possible, with people who are less accurate, to make
"approximate" reservations to do capacity planning. So a person at
the start of the day might say, "I will need a pod back home from 4:50
to 5:20" and as that time approaches they can make it more accurate,
until finally they leave their desk and ask for a more specific time,
and then they get within 60 seconds of the station and ask for a very
precise one.
Jerry Roane
Robbert
Robbert Lohmann
I don't believe this is practicable. As Jack stated, the evaluation
required is what does the reservation add to the passenger, if the
service is already instantly without reservation? This in light of the
fact that reserving a pod can have a detrimental effect on the
performance of the system as a whole.
With a special note about the vehicles only coming into the station at
the moment the person enters the station: where do I store that pod?
This means I need to create buffer locations, so spatial planning
should allow for this AND I have to face additional costs in creating
this infrastructure.
Although I like the service it provides, it needs to be balanced with
the technology and costs you introduce relative to the added value. As
you see, I am not convinced at this time ;-)
@ Jerry
Please don't get me wrong: I am not saying that we should ignore the
user/passenger. The user is the customer of our customer (the operator
and/or city), which means our customer should (!) be designing his
services to best cater to the needs of his customers (the user). We
all realize that at times this is difficult as a lot of entities are
unfamiliar with the concept and think along established lines, not
being able to think outside the box. Which is why we as innovators
have to go further and help them consider all aspects. However, we
also need to realize that sometimes the interests of our customers and
the ultimate users don't necessarily align. Being aware of this will
help market your product more easily.
What I have always found odd is that on 90% of the websites the
advantages of PRT to users are highlighted, although we are not trying
to sell it to them. Perhaps we should state the advantages to our
customers first, and secondly highlight the user benefits as well?
Brad Templeton
Knowing that people will want pods 5 (or more) minutes before they
enter the station means you don't necessarily have to keep a pod at
every station. Or even if you do, if 3 people want a pod at station
X, you can move 3 pods there or closer to there. This is
particularly useful for rush hour and for burst crowds or flash
mobs. At rush hour the pods will mostly be in use, you can't keep
one at every station but you can plan ahead as well as possible if you
know your demand 5 minutes in advance. If, at rush hour, you still
have a pod in every station sitting idle, you've overprovisioned.
Particularly the remote and anti-commute stations. And as noted,
you can create ad-hoc GRTs which is the most powerful way of handling
peak load.
You may argue, "no, you have to spend the money to make sure you have
enough pods to always have a spare one at every station" but cities
will always spend the minimum they can get away with.
Michael Weidler
| Cincinnati for one. --- On Sun, 2/27/11, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Date: Sunday, February 27, 2011, 11:18 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
| I am curious as to how you exploit cargo/freight? PRT is constrained to a guideway. If the guideway does not have a spur to where the cargo/freight is going, how does the cargo/freight get on or off the PRT? --- On Mon, 2/28/11, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote: |
|
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011, 6:21 AM |
Kirston Henderson
I am curious as to how you exploit cargo/freight? PRT is constrained to a guideway. If the guideway does not have a spur to where the cargo/freight is going, how does the cargo/freight get on or off the PRT?
No problem at all. Our MicroWay™ systems are designed with a cargo carrier vehicle that transports a small cargo container. The cargo container vehicles stop on special cargo sidings that are off of the main lines. The cargo containers may be loaded, unloaded with ordinary forklifts.
Jerry Roane
--
Jerry Roane
eph
pallet moving ramps/equipment - perhaps segregated from passengers.
It depends on context.
Most simply, you would go to the PRT station and wait for your cargo
which could be picked up with a trailer or truck. Some rendez-vous
method/rules would be needed and probably only authorized persons
could load cargo. A loading bay might be a good option if heavy loads
are frequently expected.
F.
On Mar 10, 3:15 pm, Michael Weidler <pstran...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am curious as to how you exploit cargo/freight? PRT is constrained to a guideway. If the guideway does not have a spur to where the cargo/freight is going, how does the cargo/freight get on or off the PRT?
>
Kirston Henderson
A spur works, or one of the berths can be accommodated with skid/pallet moving ramps/equipment - perhaps segregated from passengers.It depends on context.
Jack Slade
This part of the discussion was about Masdar. Since PRT was certainly going to serve every part of it, then freight unloading spaces would certainly have to be part of the plan, unless another method is used for re-stocking stores. Since I understand the space between buildings was to be just 40 feet, putting pedestrians, cars, and delivery trucks on a single street will be difficult. That upper level was to be for people only....no vehicles of any kind. Now they will need streets and sidewalks.
|
|
Jerry Schneider
>A spur works, or one of the berths can be accommodated with skid/
>pallet moving ramps/equipment - perhaps segregated from passengers.
>It depends on context.
>
>Most simply, you would go to the PRT station and wait for your cargo
>which could be picked up with a trailer or truck. Some rendez-vous
>method/rules would be needed and probably only authorized persons
>could load cargo. A loading bay might be a good option if heavy loads
>are frequently expected.
Isn't MicroWay designed as a dualmode system - it's small trains can leave
the guideway and drive on conventional streets last I heard? It has a human
driver in the lead vehicle. If this is correct, then cargo-only
trains would not
need special provisions at stations, just exit/entrance ramps at the
appropriate
locations which could be used by both cargo and passenger trains.
Kirston Henderson
On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:39 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:
> At 02:03 PM 3/10/2011, you wrote:
>> A spur works, or one of the berths can be accommodated with skid/
>> pallet moving ramps/equipment - perhaps segregated from passengers.
>> It depends on context.
>>
>> Most simply, you would go to the PRT station and wait for your cargo
>> which could be picked up with a trailer or truck. Some rendez-vous
>> method/rules would be needed and probably only authorized persons
>> could load cargo. A loading bay might be a good option if heavy
>> loads
>> are frequently expected.
>
> Isn't MicroWay designed as a dualmode system - it's small trains can
> leave
> the guideway and drive on conventional streets last I heard? It has
> a human
> driver in the lead vehicle. If this is correct, then cargo-only
> trains would not
> need special provisions at stations, just exit/entrance ramps at the
> appropriate
> locations which could be used by both cargo and passenger trains.
Cargo only MicroWay™ trams can exit the guideway, but that does not
prevent us from also having elevated cargo stations for use by
guideway-only trains.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
Michael Weidler
| Where are these groups coming from all of a sudden? People do not tend to move in herds unless forced to do so. Outside of a campus setting, I can't see GRT being useful. --- On Mon, 2/28/11, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
|
Michael Weidler
| Of course they will share - especially if they are already in a herd situation. If I understand this application, it connects a metro station with the business park. Since people are already in a shared environment (the metro), they are not likely to object to the additional journey via GRT any more than they would object to sharing an elevator. But would they be so willing to share the ride all the way from home if they knew they were not required to do so? |
--- On Tue, 3/1/11, Robbert Lohmann <rob...@2getthere.eu> wrote: |
|
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2011, 12:26 AM |
Jerry Schneider
>Where are these groups coming from all of a sudden? People do not
>tend to move in herds unless forced to do so. Outside of a campus
>setting, I can't see GRT being useful.
My interest in a mixed PRT/GRT system is simply a response to the
"infernal capacity" problem that I think is a major
hurdle to the installing "pure" PRT in reasonably high density urban settings.
>--- On Mon, 2/28/11, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>
>Is there something wrong with a bus ride in a small bus on a guideway during
>peak periods when groups with similar travel requirements are most likely to
>need service. If wait times and travel times were not substantially
>greater for GRT
>travel, but fares were lower, what would the tradeoff look like? Depends on
>what "substantially" means to the people involved and how much different
>the fare would be - might even be free to bring demand down more rapidly to
>levels more easily accommodated by PRT capabilities.
>
>
>--
>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
>Of course they will share - especially if they are already in a herd
>situation. If I understand this application, it connects a metro
>station with the business park. Since people are already in a shared
>environment (the metro), they are not likely to object to the
>additional journey via GRT any more than they would object to
>sharing an elevator. But would they be so willing to share the ride
>all the way from home if they knew they were not required to do so?
That's a question that market research techniques are designed to
answer. Clearly beyond personal intuition.
>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Brad Templeton
parking lot to terminal for example -- where it takes no intuition to
know they would tolerate GRT on a system like the LHR PRT. And at
rush hour, we know that a portion of travelers today use public
transit and would probably use GRT if given an incentive to do so over
a personal pod. To me the question is whether people would do GRT
during periods of peak load, effectively increasing the capacity of a
system.
On Mar 12, 8:34 am, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> At 08:13 AM 3/12/2011, you wrote:
>
> >Of course they will share - especially if they are already in a herd
> >situation. If I understand this application, it connects a metro
> >station with the business park. Since people are already in a shared
> >environment (the metro), they are not likely to object to the
> >additional journey via GRT any more than they would object to
> >sharing an elevator. But would they be so willing to share the ride
> >all the way from home if they knew they were not required to do so?
>
> That's a question that market research techniques are designed to
> answer. Clearly beyond personal intuition.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jack Slade
I have a challenge to all those who "KNOW" that GRT will carry more PPH than PRT. I have heard this statement too often, so SHOW ME.
The Challenge: Pick any 10-mile long stretch of street and lay out the facts gor a GRT system of your choice, be it busses or other vehicles that you would propose to manufacture.
State vehicle capacity, distance between stops, timing between vehicles....briefly any facts that you have to offer in support of your argument, including cost.
The Criteria: It has to be doable,workable.
Show me: The other members of the list can pick the holes in it. Try for about 10,000 PPH in one direction. If you can't do this, then please stop making the same silly assertation!
Jack Slade
--- On Sat, 3/12/11, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Jerry Roane
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jack Slade
The fact is that all the bus Companies in the World have not been able to acconplish this, and they have had 100 years to try and fail. From this I accept as fact that it cannot be done at grade.
Every time we mention small, elevated guideways, for PRT, somebody always wants to make it bigger( more expensive) to carry GRT, for this fake reason. This is the argument that made Morgantown GRT, and partly what ruined Raytheon's chance of success.....size and cost.
Lets get it settled, once and for all time. SHOW ME that you can back up your statement with facts, or I have the right to call "BULLSHIT" every time I hear it in the future.
Jack Slade
--- On Sun, 3/13/11, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> >For more options, visit this group at
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
> - 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
Michael Weidler
| So using a 12 passenger vehicle to move one person is more economical than using a 4 person vehicle? In that case, minivans should be the most efficient vehicles on the road. --- On Sun, 3/6/11, van...@comcast.net <van...@comcast.net> wrote: |
|
Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011, 9:38 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Gronning
years for selling LRT. It compares seats to seats. (Or standing as seems
to be the case.) The argument even seems to sway Jack. Because a system
CAN carry more people, will it? Is there a difference in the terms,
"capacity" and "riders?"
The point of PRT is that the larger the system gets, the closer to one
passenger the numbers get. More stations mean that less people will ride
together. The ten mile trial will show only that GRT will win. How about
a network of 100 miles? Ridership studies?
I saw a presentation on a ridership model in the form of a computer
program, presented by Ian Ford in SJ. When the time for the wait was
reduced substantially the ridership increased substantially. There are
other factors that can be put into this program that actually stagger
people in the transit profession. When Ian put "zero wait" into his
program and the results came up, a transit guy in the back of the room
almost fell out of his seat. Obviously in his career had never
contemplated or even fantasized ridership figures like that.
The point is that the various factors for each system have to be modeled
and examined for cost, appearance, and the number of riders that it will
ultimately attract. Bottom line!
Dick
van...@comcast.net
(1) I don't know why it seems to be assumed that I assumed that no more than one person will ever be moved.
(2) If no more than one person is ever to be moved, why 4 person vehicles? Why not one person vehicles?
(3) Families buy minivans for reasons, one of which is that they can carry more people. If the test is the value of what useful things they accomplish relative to what they cost, minvans could be the most efficient vehilces on the road.
Dennis Manning
99% built on the simple intuition that you can get higher capacity with
bigger vehicles. I've yet to see a good case made for that. GRT or big mass
transit vehicles as far as I can see only get the capacity advantage when
few O&Ds are involved. Increase O&Ds and the advantage quickly evaporates.
With increased O&Ds fewer and fewer trips pairs occur between people wanting
to go to a particular place from a particular place. When thousands want to
go to say a ball game they come from thousands of places as well. I see GRT
applications limited to very very specific locations.
Another aspect is that when the need for GRT creeps into the discussion the
needed capacity estimates are way overblown. All you need to do is look at
the maximum demand for existing mass transit systems. They aren't nearly as
large as intuition would lead one to imagine.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jack Slade" <skytr...@rogers.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:22 AM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Brad Templeton
at rush hour you can do things to make people who are going to the
same destination, or a destination along the route of the the others,
you can get more capacity.
On Mar 13, 9:48 am, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> 99% built on the simple intuition that you can get higher capacity with
> bigger vehicles. I've yet to see a good case made for that. GRT or big mass
> transit vehicles as far as I can see only get the capacity advantage when
> few O&Ds are involved. Increase O&Ds and the advantage quickly evaporates.
> With increased O&Ds fewer and fewer trips pairs occur between people wanting
> to go to a particular place from a particular place. When thousands want to
> go to say a ball game they come from thousands of places as well. I see GRT
> applications limited to very very specific locations.
>
> Another aspect is that when the need for GRT creeps into the discussion the
> needed capacity estimates are way overblown. All you need to do is look at
> the maximum demand for existing mass transit systems. They aren't nearly as
> large as intuition would lead one to imagine.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You may be right. However, if all those people that keep quoting this MYTH
> > cannot show me a reasonable, workable, cheap-enough plan that will far
> > outstrip what PRT can do, I want them to give up on this red herring. They
> > all say it, and if you ask for proof they revert to saying that it is
> > obvious, or everybody else says so, or everybody knows it
>
> > The fact is that all the bus Companies in the World have not been able to
> > acconplish this, and they have had 100 years to try and fail. From this I
> > accept as fact that it cannot be done at grade.
>
> > Every time we mention small, elevated guideways, for PRT, somebody always
> > wants to make it bigger( more expensive) to carry GRT, for this fake
> > reason. This is the argument that made Morgantown GRT, and partly what
> > ruined Raytheon's chance of success.....size and cost.
>
> > Lets get it settled, once and for all time. SHOW ME that you can back up
> > your statement with facts, or I have the right to call "BULLSHIT" every
> > time I hear it in the future.
>
> > Jack Slade
>
> >> From: Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: REVENUE, GRT, TRANSFER, ONLINE
> >> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> >> Date: Sunday, March 13, 2011, 1:18 AM
> >> Jack
> >> What do facts have to do with this point of
> >> discussion? It is intuitive for those paying 2 seconds of
> >> attention that a 15 passenger car can carry more people than
> >> a 4 passenger car. duh! All those other facts are past
> >> the attention span so irrelevant.
>
> >> What you will not get is a price for a GRT route
> >> or an actual ridership per vehicle route taken. I have
> >> never seen this data and I suspect your asking for it will
> >> not flush it out. The claim will go on forever or until
> >> you build a system and pay for it out of your pocket that
> >> disproves the notion that if 4 is good 15 is far superior.
>
> >> It is obvious that this point will never die.
> >> I think we just have to go on to new topics that are still
> >> open to the minds of most. Once locked in, a mind is a
> >> terrible thing to change. (or did I screw up that quote?)
>
> >> Jerry Roane
>
> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011
Richard Gronning
(1) I don't know why it seems to be assumed that I assumed that no more than one person will ever be moved.
Let's take the local (Minneapolis) example of LRT. Yes! It is so full at rush hour that people are left standing and waiting for the next load. I think that it averages around 15% full. A full load for the 2 (105,000 lb) cars is @ 120 passengers. at @ 15% the AVERAGE would be 18, or 9 per car.
There's a BIG difference between "EVER MOVED" and "AVERAGE."
(2) If no more than one person is ever to be moved, why 4 person vehicles? Why not one person vehicles?
(3) Families buy minivans for reasons, one of which is that they can carry more people. If the test is the value of what useful things they accomplish relative to what they cost, minvans could be the most efficient vehilces on the road.
Dick
Jack Slade
The fallacy is this: There is nothing you can do to make more people want to travel together. In the Morning, they are mostly going to work, from where they sleep. Except for |Charlie Sheen they don't sleep together, or in groups of 4, and they don't usually work together. Evening rush hour is the reverse....from different workplaces to different domiciles.
If it were possible, then I could move 28,000 per hour, and why would I still need GRT?
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robbert Lohmann
If I divide 28,000 by 3600 seconds, I end up with transporting 7,7
passengers each second. With the assumption that 1 second headways are
possible and allowed, you also need to take into account the length of
one vehicle, which means all vehicles are driving bumper-to-bumper?
Even when taking 0,5 seconds, the calculation shows 3,8 passengers per
vehicle. This is an average occupancy of 95% based on 4 seats per
vehicle?
When calculating with a 3 second headway and an average occupancy of 2
passengers, I end up with 2400 passengers. Realistically the figure is
likely to be lower as this assumes a 100% utilization of the track,
which is ony possible when all vehicles adhere exactly to their Time
profile without deviations and your scheduler continously fills all
the slots.
Robbert
Bob Dunning
If we MAKE people share vehicles during rush hours that has two effects:
- It makes the single occupancy automobile somewhat more
desirable, so you WILL have to make them share or else offer
other incentives. The ideal incentive would be allowing them to
ride with their friends all going to the same place for a
reduced price. You will have to arrange that these people just
happen to all be in the same origin location at the same time
and headed to the same destination. Right off hand the only
situation I can think of is going out to lunch from the office.
Maybe we can also promote happy hours?
- The other effect is to undermine the potential scalability of
the transportation system. We will see this as the number of
origins on the network rises to the point where passengers at
any particular origin location are unlikely to have the same or
even a similar destination. Since all transportation
professionals everywhere doubt that we will ever have a large
scale transportation system with countless origin-destination
pairs, there is no point in designing a system to be scalable.
With this thinking, GRT should always do the small jobs and
massive trains should always be required when the job is a big
one.
--
Bob Dunning
(Vancouver, BC, is an interesting city for its leverage of the capacity of every street in a balanced grid without heavy use of arterials... But I digress.)
Jerry Roane
Jack Slade
If there was a way to ( force, persuade, herd) 4 people into each vehicle, and have mainline movements at 1/2 second intervals, then you have a mainline capacity of 28,800 movements per hour. I don't know what it is like overseas, but in Toronto there are no unfilled seats during rush hour, and often no standing room either.
While I certainly plan 1 second spacing for a start, the system will have 1/2 second capability.
45 mph = 66 ft /sec, so there is 56 ft between vehicles at this speed. This becomes 23 ft at 1/2 sec spacing. If you are driving and leave more space than that somebody will put a car into it, if you are driving over here.
I designed my system to duplicate what cars do, as closely as possible. I am not interested in talking about rules made (and ignored) for trains. If some City wanted me to follow such rules I would tell them to go to hell. I would even think it was funny....nobody has ever told somebody where to shove a hundred million bucks.
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
Kirston Henderson
Every time we mention small, elevated guideways, for PRT, somebody always wants to make it bigger( more expensive) to carry GRT, for this fake reason. This is the argument that made Morgantown GRT, and partly what ruined Raytheon's chance of success.....size and cost.
Jerry Schneider
>Capacity is an "interesting" concept, sort of the same way that
>living in "interesting" times is the Chinese curse. We can
>calculate capacity in lots of different ways depending upon whether
>you have a "line haul" frame of reference or whether you are willing
>to calculate average capacity over a network using the sum of the
>alternate pathway capacities between any two destinations and then
>averaging the capacity across all possible origin-destination
>pairs. Of course that algorithm does not discount the reuse of the
>same pathways by different origin-destination pairs. Like all
>measurements of capacity, of course, we will count all available
>seats in every vehicle, regardless of the feasibility of actually
>using all seats for whatever reason. If we can rationalize that
>there is standing room available then we can count that capacity as
>well, even if the long term effect would be to make people
>determined never to use our transit mode again (unless forced by a
>lack of parking, traffic calming strategies, or other penalties).
Yes, the number of variables that can be employed is large. If the
problem is largely "perception", that is a "belief" or
"psychological" problem, which I think it is in many cases, I don't
think presenting numerous calculations will make a dent in it unless
all of the clients are "engineers" (which is highly unlikely). This
argument applies to simulation results as well for the same reasons.
My guess is that the perceptions that there is a PRTcapacity problem
is largely confined to the two daily peak periods and infrequent
major events. That is what ordinary people (commuters) think about
when presented with the PRT option.
>If we MAKE people share vehicles during rush hours that has two effects:
> * It makes the single occupancy automobile somewhat more
> desirable, so you WILL have to make them share or else offer other
> incentives. The ideal incentive would be allowing them to ride
> with their friends all going to the same place for a reduced
> price. You will have to arrange that these people just happen to
> all be in the same origin location at the same time and headed to
> the same destination. Right off hand the only situation I can
> think of is going out to lunch from the office. Maybe we can also
> promote happy hours?
It seems to me that the single occupancy automobile is likely to
become less desirable in the future unless there are significant
roadway improvements and additions and other measures to enhance
their capacity (e.g. rush hour tolls, various ITS technologies, etc.)
- simply because of increases in population and conventional autos.
> * The other effect is to undermine the potential scalability of
> the transportation system. We will see this as the number of
> origins on the network rises to the point where passengers at any
> particular origin location are unlikely to have the same or even a
> similar destination. Since all transportation professionals
> everywhere doubt that we will ever have a large scale
> transportation system with countless origin-destination pairs,
> there is no point in designing a system to be scalable. With this
> thinking, GRT should always do the small jobs and massive trains
> should always be required when the job is a big one.
GRT would most likely be used mostly in peak periods. Swedish
simulation experiments, assuming modest levels of ridesharing, have
shown some good capacity improvements, many from groups transferring
from commuter trains to PRT vehicles. Of course, Swedes are somewhat
different from Americans.
>Wait. Our current road system already offers some solutions to
>complex issues of capacity and scaleability. It costs a lot but it
>seems to be popular.
Yes, but will that also be true in the future with another 100
million or so people to accommodate and little or no improvements in
the current roadway system?
>--
>Bob Dunning
>(Vancouver, BC, is an interesting city for its leverage of the
>capacity of every street in a balanced grid without heavy use of
>arterials... But I digress.)
Are you suggesting that Vancouver, B.C. doesn't have peak period
congestion problems?
Jack Slade
No, you don't get that idea from the PRT crowd. The definition is " alone, or with a small group of your choice". If you change that, I wish you would call it something else.
I know that surveys say that a 2-seat car would suffice for 94% of automobile trips. The catch is this: surveys are done on the day-shift, and possibly when 4 people go to lunch in one car the survey team has gone to lunch also, perhaps in one car. Conduct an evening survey (I have) and there are many more cars with 3, 4, or even more people per car, sometimes.
Families go shopping together till the kids are old enough to want to do something else. Small groups go to dinner, movies ball games, and a lot of other family oriented things, all of which require more seats.
These are the reasons that made me think that seating for 4 fat adults or a family of 5 group, like the average car, is what is really necessary, and also makes room needed by ADA requirements.
Cars do not have to meet ADA requirements, and applying it to PRT will be really stupid, but it is easier to comply than to get the exemption made....at least, until the first systems are up and running. It will be a hell of an expense, but it seems to be a committment Cities have made to a small, loud group.
I personally don't care how many college kids try to squeeze into one car. However, if their combined weight + car is over 1500 lbs they are not going anywhere....weight limit switch at the loading gate. Ha Ha.
|
|
|
Brad Templeton
me. But then I live in a town where random strangers line up at
casual carpool stops where other random strangers drive up in their
cars to take them over the Bay Bridge in exchange for a savings on the
toll and a carpool lane through the toll plaza.
Put your 2015 hat on and consider people arranging their PRT trip not
at the station, but on their phone before heading out to the station.
With this it's very easy to find groups of people at rush hour going
to the same station or sharing large sections of route. Offer them a
half-price ticket, or more probably increase the price for a solo ride
at rush hour, and you should have no shortage of people willing to
share the pod.
Jerry Roane
Robbert Lohmann
I'll agree. I guess we need to start making clear which one we are
talking about, otherwise the figures don't compare as easily.
What we see is that we have an increasing average occupancy at Masdar.
3 months into the operations the average occupancy has increased from
1,7 to 2,0 to 2,1 passengers. The number of passengers per month is
increasing, while the number of trips stays relatively similar. I
believe a 50% occupany on average is actually really, really good - I
don't suspect that there will be many PRT applications in the future
that will be able to match this number (with the exception maybe for
airports). I am curious to see what this will be at Heathrow.
I agree with Kriston that there is a threshold; only once you reach
that the increase in vehicle size is coming at an expense. And the
trade-off between having to be able to carry all kinds of passengers
(families and disabled) vs. the additional costs is a very difficult
and sensitive one. At Masdar there was a lengthy discussion about how
many of the vehicles should accomodate disabled passengers - they were
willing to consider dedicated vehicles. However, we felt it was
imperative that they would be able to use any of the vehicles as the
reservation logic and mechanism for such would have been complex. The
result is a more spacious vehicle appreciated by all.
With regard to the weight limit sensor, I agree with Jack. You have to
protect against excess passengers. We have the weight sensor on the
vehicle as well. However, there is still the requirement that the
vehicle design should be able to deal with 4 to 6 passengers per
square meter of floor space in terms of weight. This is a legal
requirement in many countries that has to be taken into account.
The discussion about headways is not one I am going to start again ;-)
Robbert
Bob Dunning
Maybe if there were hitchhiker licenses, and rfid chips embedded in hitchhikers we would see more of this kind of ad hoc car pooling. Of course, the person getting picked up is more likely to be the one victimized. I know there are IPhone and Android apps to facilitate this kind of thing. Do they have liability issues? I need to ask some people I know.
But why would I alone worry about these things? Is it possible I alone saw the first spam message that was launched on the Internet? The first accusation of fascism? The first flame war? The first Internet Worm? The first PC virus? The first Denial of Service attack? The first Trojan? The first fire wall? Was I the only person passively watching when Phil Zimmerman fought the U.S. government to secure our right to private communications? Why do things seem so edenic to you, Brad? :-)
You of all people.
I would like to suggest that there are larger issues than whether dualmode, robocars, prt, or something else will be the next advance in ground transportation. Perhaps the answer to those issues will not be to "route around it". Edenic or not, we do have an edenic opportunity to lay a foundation if we have a clear vision of both the past and the future.
--
Bob Dunning
Brad Templeton
gets a big win for it, in time or money. I'm not sure it reduces
congestion that much since the pickup stops are almost all at BART
stations -- ie. the riders could just get on the BART but that's $3.10
each way (as much as $1,500 per year if you did it both ways every
day) plus probably having to stand up. The drivers used to save the
whole toll, how they just save around $3.50 I think but they get the
fast carpool lane through the maze which is a big win. I think in
DC it's all about the timesaving (Highway 66 is carpools only, the
whole highway.) Some suggest casual carpool only works with
HOV-3.
There are web sites that describe all the rules (and have boards for
people to discuss problem drivers and passengers.) Yes, lots of women
do it, you are not supposed to take offence if they wave off a car
with all men in it. Don't know how often they do.
But we're just talking about people who were already up to taking
transit debating between getting on a crowded train or sitting in a
car with some strangers. Usually nicely dressed, financial district
strangers.
In most of the world, by the way, Jitney travel is very popular as
well, though it is less common in the USA. But I've routinely shared
a cab to Manhattan from JFK when I was alone with a random stranger.
Happens all the time.
The T in PRT is still transit. It's more car-like than any other
transit but it's still transit, and the evidence show that with proper
incentives people are happy to share. People sometimes liken PRT to a
horizontal elevator. Who won't share an elevator -- in fact it's
downright rude. At a simple system like Masdar or LHR, can you
imagine people during peak time, going from the parking lot to the
terminal, saying, "No, sorry, I want this pod to myself. You guys
wait in line for the next one?"
If you want it to happen you can make it happen, by either bumping the
price of a non-shared ride at rush hour (when shared is available) or
giving priority to people sharing (ie. those who indicated willingness
to share get a pod right away, those needing a private pod who *could*
share, must wait until all sharing passengers have departed. In
fact, do that and people will be falling over themselves to share the
pod, I am pretty sure, and you can get near-full occupancy on the high
traffic lines at rush hour. If a person is going to a place which
has nobody else going to it, they would probably not have to wait.
But they might, the PRT is still better than the alternatives. People
tolerate this sort of stuff at rush hour. They tolerate a lot worse,
both in cars and on transit.
Or you could massively overprovision so there is enough for a solo pod
for everybody at rush hour. But that's not going to happen. Transit
systems don't spend money that way.
On Mar 16, 2:28 am, Bob Dunning <b...@dunning.us> wrote:
> It's wonderful to hear how people are uniting in the Bay area to eliminate congestion. What percentage of the cars carry extra
> passengers over the Bay Bridge? Are there any women waiting to be picked up? Do passengers get dropped off at the Carpool Stop on
> the other side? Where are those passengers going? How do they get to the Carpool Stop? Are they like the ferry riders in the
> Puget Sound area who keep a car on each side so they can get around?
>
> Maybe if there were hitchhiker licenses, and rfid chips embedded in hitchhikers we would see more of this kind of ad hoc car
> pooling. Of course, the person getting picked up is more likely to be the one victimized. I know there are IPhone and Android apps
> to facilitate this kind of thing. Do they have liability issues? I need to ask some people I know.
>
> But why would I alone worry about these things? Is it possible I alone saw the first spam message that was launched on the
> Internet? The first accusation of fascism? The first flame war? The first Internet Worm? The first PC virus? The first Denial
> of Service attack? The first Trojan? The first fire wall? Was I the only person passively watching when Phil Zimmerman
Jerry Roane
Dennis Manning
declining for decades if occupancy rates are an indication, and this in
spite of all sorts of efforts to raise the vehicle occupancy rates.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 11:45 AM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: Bay Bridge Car Pooling
Brad Templeton
bearing that has on the question of whether people, at rush hour, will
ride with others given a reasonable incentive. Those who ride transit
always have done so, and many who drive also do it, so I think it's
pretty clear it can happen.
Will it happen? Yes, if it needs to. While individuals will
personally pay high premiums to use their own vehicle, transit
agencies tend to overexpect sharing actually, and that's how they buy
facilities. Given the option of a system which is cheaper, and still
handles rush hour load with some sharing, I am confident they will
find this attractive. Truth be known, it's a hard slog to get them to
deal with the idea of single-rider vehicles at all! Rather, transit
agency thinking is, "they can sit in the off-hours but will stand at
rush hour, and we'll even have white-gloved people pack them in
tighter rather than pay for more capacity." Cost of a system is
generally tied to its peak load ability, and anything to reduce that
peak vehicle demand is generally a winner.
On Mar 16, 2:15 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> declining for decades if occupancy rates are an indication, and this in
> spite of all sorts of efforts to raise the vehicle occupancy rates.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
Dennis Manning
essentially flat to lower for decades I guess no "reasonable incentives"
have been put in place.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 3:09 PM