New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

[Jerry Schneider]

I see 109 views this morning, but only 4 "likes". How to explain?
I've had at least 12 messages saying that the viewer liked it.
Perhaps people are just not indicating that sentiment by clicking the
thumbs up symbol? Or ---?

[Jack Slade]

I am sure you already know some of our views.  Lets start with car size:  You get ON a Bus,  you get IN a car.  This is becoming GRT because somebody doesn't understand PRT,  for the same reason other systems have retained walk-on cars....they are too used to busses. Jack Slade --- On Sun, 2/5/12, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> 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 transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Nathan Koren]

A nearly 4% "like" rate is excellent. The recent Heathrow Pod video
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5SchtSQcvY), with 19,450 views and 52
"likes", has a "like" rate of 0.2%. Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" -- the
most popular youtube video of all time -- has a "like" rate of 0.13%.
Moral of the story: this doesn't really mean very much.

[Nathan Koren]

No, they're adding GRT for a very good reason: because although PRT
can be designed to handle sharp fluxes in demand, it isn't necessarily
economical to do so. In many cases, a mixed-mode PRT/GRT system is the
best response, and I'm glad to see Vectus advancing the industry this
way.

Let me illustrate this with a somewhat contrived example. Imagine you
have an application which operates 18 hours per day, and during most
hours, has 1,000 passenger-trips heading in all directions. Let's say
that each trip takes five minutes and carries 1.5 passengers per
vehicle, and 30% of the vehicle-trips are empty (to accommodate
repositioning vehicles). Do the math, and you'll find that this system
requires 94 vehicles to serve that level of demand on a continuous
basis. Not bad, to carry 18,000 passenger-trips per day with just 94
vehicles, right?

However there is also a rush hour in the morning, and another one in
the evening, when 4,000 passengers trips per hour need to take place.
How does a PRT system handle this?

1.) You can add more PRT vehicles and run them as before. Now you've
just bought a fleet of 376 vehicles, 282 of which will go unused for
almost 90% of each day. You also need to make the stations
equivalently larger in order to accommodate this number of berthing
vehicles. You can't amortise the cost of a PRT vehicle (or berth) by
utilising it for just 2 hours per day, so that's going to
significantly worsen your business case.

2.) You can create incentives for ride-sharing and ways of
accommodating it within the ticketing and passenger-flow systems. In
practice, it's possible to get average vehicle occupancies of up to
three people in most circumstances, although this requires quite a bit
of creativity to do successfully. Now you only need to buy 188
vehicles (and equivalently larger stations), but you're still not
going to be able to amortise 94 of them.

3.) Because most of the commuting fluxes like this typically appear
along predictable corridors, you can serve the rush-hour demand with
GRT vehicles. Unlike a PRT vehicle, GRT vehicles can carry people
until they are standing-room-only. So, in this hypothetical system,
you can serve the excess 3,000 passenger-trips during each rush hour
with 24 18-person GRT vehicles. You'll still have difficulty
amortising these vehicles, but since they're only (at a guess) about
twice the price of a PRT vehicle -- and the passenger-side space
requirements for GRT vehicles are also relatively modest, reducing the
cost burden on the stations as well -- you'll get a much better
business case from this scenario than from the other two.

This might sound like a rather contrived scenario, but in practice,
many of the business cases that we're seeing actually look quite a lot
like this. This is mostly because interest in transport solution is
highest in areas where peak commuting fluxes are causing the severe
problems. There are certainly a lot of urban transport problems that
don't resemble this example, but that isn't where the market is at
right now. Vectus is doing a very smart thing by catering to the
demand pattern of the market, as well as making sure that the GRT
infrastructure is fully PRT capable as well.

Cheers,

Nathan

On Feb 5, 6:36 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I am sure you already know some of our views.  Lets start with car size:  You get ON a Bus,  you get IN a car.  This is becoming GRT because somebody doesn't understand PRT,  for the same reason other systems have retained walk-on cars....they are too used to busses.
>
> Jack Slade
> --- On Sun, 2/5/12, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
> From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
> Subject: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, February 5, 2012, 5:33 PM
>
> I see 109 views this morning, but only 4 "likes". How to explain? I've had at least 12 messages saying that the viewer liked it. Perhaps people are just not indicating that sentiment by clicking the thumbs up symbol? Or ---?
>
> -- 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]

Jack:

 

Amen. The mass transit mind set that says you have to have big vehicles to avoid congestion problems just won't go away. I'll call it the GRT syndrome.

 

It was the GRT syndrome that puffed up Morgantown. My sense is that part of the syndrome has infected Vectus. Vectus is probably getting seduced into thinking GRT will be more saleable  to cities. Perhaps, but the price Vectus will pay is producing a product that the end users don't want. They want individual transportation.

 

Keynes quote lives: "The real difficulty in changing any enterprise lies not in developing new
ideas but in escaping from old one."

Dennis 

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

[Roy Reynolds]

GRT mode is an excellent excellent add to the product line.  The apparent ability to mix PRT and GRT vehicles makes perfect sense, and just amplifies what this technology is really about -- fully automated, computerized, driverless, 24/7/365 transit.

My only mild concern is how much weight the larger vehicle adds to the guideway infrastructure, and in turn what is then required in terms of costs, any increased guideway size, reduced distance between pylons and reduced turning radius.  I'd speculate that two guideway 'sizes' might make sense, one to support the GRT, one not, so the PRT vehicles might only be routed on the lighter guideways to smaller target stations, e.g. those I've long talked about at hotels, apartment/condo complexes, etc. that produce only a one or family of riders at a time (who do not wish to share a vehicle or can not due to a different destination).  The control system can separate all these options and correctly route the different vehicles types.

The GRT vehicles are a perfect counter to the mainstream transit authority types who wish their train sets to only be LRT.  Vectus can now overcome these arguments, and especially if/when their software is able to model historical ridership patterns by matching them to the right size and quantities of vehicles over particular time periods.

Roy

[Roy Reynolds]

I was curious who the uploader of the video was.  Found this: http://podcarcity.org/stockholm/conference/details/details-conference/?tx_cal_controller[view]=organizer&tx_cal_controller[type]=tx_cal_organizer&tx_cal_controller[uid]=276&tx_cal_controller[lastview]=&type-tx_cal_phpicalendar=

RR

[Richard Gronning]

They're adding GRT because,

1. They designed a system operating at 4 minute intervals.
2. They can't conceive of anything but a small circulator where many stations aren't necessary.
3. It works for people with a lot of rules for public use.
   

[Jack Slade]

Nathan:  I can follow your line of thinking,  but try to understand mine.  If the cars are cheap enough,  it doesn't matter how many you build.  Suggest you give up on trying to supply max service with the fewest possible vehicles.  You want to optimize profits,  or optimize convenience? The latter will eventually give you the greater profits.   For any system,  I would plan on 60 vehicles per mile,  for 1 second spacing,  and production costs way below $10,000 per vehicle.  That is about $500,000 per mile.  I would not plan "berths":  Too time-consuming,  restricts traffic flow, requires big, expensive stations. I also would not plan at-grade stations:  there is lots of room to build them at airports,  or at a test site,  but not available in any cities that I visit,  unless you want to talk the Public into letting you convert local parks into transit stations.  Lots of luck on that idea,  especially in the UK.   A system that can carry 3600 people full route really carry about 10,000 per hour in normal city traffic,   where hardly anybody ever goes the full length of the route. When Transit Figures state that a streetcar can handle 10,00 per hour,  they are just counting tickets sold, and sometimes countimg flow in both directrions.   that's all for now.....Jack --- On Sun, 2/5/12, Nathan Koren <nko...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://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-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Nathan Koren]

No, really they're not. They're adding it for exactly the reasons I
describe. I know this because:

A.) That's honestly the only way to get the math to work in cases
where there is very high and narrow peak demand relative to the base
demand, and
B.) I was in Uppsala recently discussing exactly this with Vectus, and
they told related it to me just as I've related it to you.

I don't know where you got the idea about operating at 4 minute
intervals, but that's not at all correct. In a mixed PRT-GRT Vectus
system, both would be operating at 3.5-second headways.

Cheers,

Nathan

On Feb 5, 9:04 pm, Richard Gronning <rgronn...@gofast.am> wrote:
> They're adding GRT because,
>

>  1. They designed a system operating at 4 minute intervals.
>  2. They can't conceive of anything but a small circulator where many
>     stations aren't necessary.
>  3. It works for people with a lot of rules for public use.

[Nathan Koren]

Hi Jack,

I'm sure that when PRT vehicles are drawn from a production line which
produces millions such vehicles per year, vehicles will cost about
$10k apiece and the financial calculus will be quite different. But in
today's world, PRT vehicles are still built in very small custom-
production runs, and the cost per vehicle is considerably more than
$10k each -- enough so that optimising the fleet size is a very real
and necessary concern.

Also, it's not just about the number of vehicles; it's also about the
size and cost of the stations. To give you an idea of how that math
works:

* A single PRT berth is 5 meters long and can launch an occupied
vehicle roughly every 30 seconds (this number can vary a lot,
depending on system specs and station design, but this is a pretty
optimistic figure I'm using.
* If each PRT vehicle carries 1.5 passengers, then that's 180 pax/
berth/hr, or 36 pax/hr per meter of platform length.
* In practice, to accommodate shorter-duration demand fluxes than the
hourly rate would indicate, you need to leave a margin of berth space
that is well above the minimum. Let's call it a 100% buffer for our
purposes; so we get 18 pax/hr/m of linear station platform.
* To serve 1,000 pax-trips per hour, you thus need about 56 linear
meters of platform space.
* To serve 4,000 pax-trips per hour in the same way, you'd need at
least 222 linear meters of platform space -- and again, 75% of that
would go unutilized 90% of the time.
* You'd also need to find a place to park the other 282 vehicles,
which would add up to another 1.2 kms of off-guideway buffers
somewhere. Expensive.

On the other hand:

* A GRT system which can inter-operate with 2 PRT berths can also
launch an occupied vehicle every 30 seconds.
* If each GRT vehicle carries 18 people, then that's 1080 pax/berth/
hr, or 216 pax/hr per meter of platform length.
* This doesn't really need to have an extra margin on it, because the
GRT runs during rush hour on a regularly-scheduled interval, but let's
give it one anyway
* So to take up the extra 3,000 pax/hr during rush hour, the GRT needs
an extra 28 meters of of platform space.
* For storage outside of rush hour, the 24 GRT vehicles would need
about 0.3 kms of off-guideway buffers somewhere.

So, to compare the two options:

* 376 PRT vehicles, vs. 93 PRT vehicles and 24 GRT vehicles
* 222 linear meters of station platform, vs. 84 linear meters of
station platform
* 1.2 kms of extra off-guideway buffers, vs. .3 km of extra off-
guideway buffers

And keep in mind that with this arrangement:

* During 90% of the day, the system is still PRT-only.
* Even during rush hours, trips that are not along a natural GRT-
served demand corridor can still be taken by PRT
* Waiting time for the GRT vehicles, during rush hours, would not be
significantly longer than for the PRT vehicles
* Capital costs are dramatically lower
* Space utilisation is dramatically more efficient

Hope this helps you to see why Vectus and others will be evolving
heading in this direction.

Again, in scenarios where the demand curve has low peaks and high
valleys, all-PRT systems make sense. But where the demand curve has
high peaks and low valleys, what makes sense is some kind of mixed-
mode system, with the complementary mode being one that is able to
accommodate "crush" capacities. This can be rail or bus, but running
GRT off the same infrastructure that you'd have anyway for PRT, often
makes the most sense.

Cheers,

Nathan

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

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

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

[eph]

CabinTaxi (which was ready to deploy) offered GRT vehicles/mode but without increasing guideway requirements or frontal area.  So no standees.  I think standing passengers also limit your acceleration and deceleration rates to around  0.1 g (1 m/s^2).

So though I think GRT adds some capability in certain circumstances, standing passengers (and the Vectus depictions of such) may not have thought through fully.

F.

[Richard Gronning]

Sorry about the 2 minute. Obviously, I meant 4 second. 3.5 isn't much
better compared with 1/2 second, thought out in the '70s.
Sorry also about the GRT. Even after all that has been written, I can't
get my head around the concept. What is left out of this concept?
passengers! If you get a large number of stations, ie, a complete metro
system, the number of riders going to a certain station go towards those
of the auto, 1.3 riders. (0.96 in D.C with chauffeurs.) Of course, if
you're planning for only a small system with limited stations, the
numbers work.

Dick

[Jerry Roane]

F.

You are missing the point.  If the plan is to save vehicles and reduce customer service then a double-decker articulated bus is near perfection.  Forget PRT  or GRT go for MassiveRT MRT.  If riding five passengers standing up two bicycles and a skateboard is nirvana then putting 288 passengers in the same vehicle would be better still.  A city bus fits 72 passengers so a double-decker two long articulated bus would fit 288.  If you had 32 of these puppies traveling on a roadway one every 4 minutes you can move a lot more than GRT during the rush.  You could leave off all the stations in the town to feed into this high capacity so you would have only one station downtown to peak it all out and get great numbers.  One humongous central station and 32 double decker double long buses fantastic!  They could travel away from the massive station and dump their loads 5 miles from the station and then return.  That would maximize the flow of the corridors and allow you to reduce the travel time from a single downtown.  That is the goal right?

I guess you could have a three high triple long bus hmmmmmm.  MMRT?

Jerry Roane 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/lwlqhyn__40J.

[Roy Reynolds]

I'm curious about the PRT vehicles running in tandem in a few scenes --
they seem to be actually coupled together. What's advantageous about this?

RAR

[eph]

As I see it, some PRT is better than no PRT.  If GRT allows a project to go ahead and PRT service is available at off-peak hours, that's a win.  BTW, seated GRT would vastly outclass most buses and trains.

I'm still a DM proponent, as you are, but you have to admit that a GRT/PRT system is better than mass transit.  To lump the two together is unfair.

F.

Jerry Roane 

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Slade]

1.  You are talking about vehicles that are much more complicated than I plan to have.   2.  That's exactly what I said about berths:  Too cumbersome,  takes up too much space,  limits throughput,  too expensive....all goood reason to design without them.   Jack Slade

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group athttp://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-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://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-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[kirston henderson]

on 2/5/12 1:25 PM, Dennis Manning at john.m...@comcast.net wrote:

Jack:

Amen. The mass transit mind set that says you have to have big vehicles to avoid congestion problems just won't go away. I'll call it the GRT syndrome.

It was the GRT syndrome that puffed up Morgantown. My sense is that part of the syndrome has infected Vectus. Vectus is probably getting seduced into thinking GRT will be more saleable  to cities. Perhaps, but the price Vectus will pay is producing a product that the end users don't want. They want individual transportation.

   Did it ever occur to you that you may be one of the few who always wants to ride alone.  Perhaps, a bike would be more to your liking.

Kirston Henderson

[Dennis Manning]

From: kirston henderson

Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 6:51 AM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

What are you smoking. Average passenger load in cars is about 1.3. In the US MASS transit gets about 3% of trips.

 

Dennis

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

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

[Kirston Henderson]

ÇOn Feb 6, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Dennis Manning wrote:

 

What are you smoking. Average passenger load in cars is about 1.3. In the US MASS transit gets about 3% of trips.

 

Dennis

I wonder what that 1.3 passenger PRT vehicle is going to look like how it is going to serve families.

Kirston Henderson

[Dennis Manning]

 

From: Kirston Henderson

Sent: Monday, February 06, 2012 9:55 PM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

According to Ed Anderson only 3% of auto trips carry over 3 pax. Remedy for families - take two vehicles.

 

Dennis

[Jack Slade]

I would suggest it serves families exactly as cars do,  with one exception:  Instead of the car being in the driveway,  some people would have to walk a hundred feet to get to it.  Others,  about 30%,  would have to walk 300 feet.  50% of the people would have to walk 600 feet. That may be look bad,  right now,  but it is Utopia compared to walking a whole 5280 feet,  or more,  to catch a streetcar,  bus,  or train.   Getting there faster,  cheaper,  non-stop,  and without rubbing elbows with the average crowd who currently use Public Transit is all bonus.  The forced excercise....walking....is a bonus too, although many overweight people think it is a nuisance. You can walk 600 feet faster than you can scrape ice off your windshield,  if you live anywhere North of Texas.   Jack Slade --- On Tue, 2/7/12, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

[kirston henderson]

on 2/7/12 12:28 AM, Dennis Manning at john.m...@comcast.net wrote:

According to Ed Anderson only 3% of auto trips carry over 3 pax. Remedy for families - take two vehicles.

Dennis

   You must be single without any children. I know that when our sons were young, we would NEVER have considered such an arrangement and I suspect that this would hold true for most parents.

Kirston Henderson

[kirston henderson]

on 2/7/12 2:09 AM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

I would suggest it serves families exactly as cars do,  with one exception:  Instead of the car being in the driveway,  some people would have to walk a hundred feet to get to it.  Others,  about 30%,  would have to walk 300 feet.  50% of the people would have to walk 600 feet. That may be look bad,  right now,  but it is Utopia compared to walking a whole 5280 feet,  or more,  to catch a streetcar,  bus,  or train.

Getting there faster,  cheaper,  non-stop,  and without rubbing elbows with the average crowd who currently use Public Transit is all bonus.  The forced excercise....walking....is a bonus too, although many overweight people think it is a nuisance. You can walk 600 feet faster than you can scrape ice off your windshield,  if you live anywhere North of Texas.

   I doubt that anyone would ever install a PRT line any closer to our house than the current city bus route.  Walking to catch the city bus involves hiding up a long steep hill and then waiting outside in the weather for a half hour or more for a bus, waiting on a platform at a downtown transfer station for from a half hour to an hour and then walking a significant distance at the destination end.  Where our offices are located, you would have to walk about four miles to catch a city bus.

   Great arrangement, if you want to waste most of your day just getting to work and home.

Kirston Henderson

[Richard Gronning]

We had a family with 6 children asking that question. The mom leaves with some children in the 1st vehicle. The middle vehicle leaves with more children. Dad brings up the rear with the rest of the children. Since the vehicles all arrive within seconds (or less) what's the problem?
Dick

[kirston henderson]

on 2/7/12 9:06 AM, Richard Gronning at rgro...@gofast.am wrote:

We had a family with 6 children asking that question. The mom leaves with some children in the 1st vehicle. The middle vehicle leaves with more children. Dad brings up the rear with the rest of the children. Since the vehicles all arrive within seconds (or less) what's the problem?

   Great, as long as the children in that second car manage to select the correct destination station.  If not, then what?

Kirston Henderson

[Dave Petrie]

Excerpt from paper given at the 13^th Electric Vehicle Symposium in Osaka 1996.  The argument below this excerpt -between a PRT boomer and a DM advocate who is pushing his brand that assumes all transported cars will forever look like today’s 3500-lb types- lacks the dimension of System Engineering.

 

Transit in the 21st Century

Sometime within the next 15 years, the microcar will largely replace the conventional ICV for daily use, the latter now consuming inordinate road and parking lot space. Many families will still retain (or rent) an ICV van/sedan for long-range family trips, camping outings, and heavy hauls. But they will become ‘dust catchers’, due to their infrequent use.

The Car Bus will have a profound impact on urban travel in particular, and quality of life in general. In 7-20 years, the microcar will become the most popular car in the industrialized world, reducing the wasteful use of the conventional-sized ICV for SOV commuting.

A typical family with two working parents and a college student will own a seldom-used ICE minivan, with three hybrid/fuel cell, or pure battery-powered microcars, angle-parked within the second garage stall.

Freeway congestion will be virtually eliminated. Up to 80% of workplace and shopping mall parking lots will be redesigned, near tripling capacity. Human energy and time, now wasted in freeway traffic, will be available for more productive use.

Microcar

                The conventional sized car is too large for its most used mission-commuting and neighborhood errands. But if we are to maximize the efficiency of Car Bus and parking lots in our war on congestion, a purpose-built car is in order. The minimum sized microcar was selected to be 2.5 meters long, to match the typical width of a transporter for transverse unload/load.

An interesting microcar design employing composite structure and EV/hybrid power has three seats, the driver sumptuously seated in the center, providing better balance for this 350 kg. microcar. 

The 3-passenger model is designed primarily as a purpose-built car for SOV commuting and neighborhood errands—what some might think of as a ‘second car’. However, families consisting of more than 2-3 people and living in apartments or high-density areas may not afford the cost or parking space of owning a microcar for each licensed driver and a standard-size car for the family. A four-passenger microcar (1.4 meters wide) is possible if the owners accept seating density equivalent to economy class in an airplane.

The four-passenger model might better fit their needs.

The dilemma of which car to buy could also be solved by a growth in local auto rentals. Automation will permit reservation via phone keypad, followed by dispensing of a minivan or truck adjacent to the microcar as the renter drives into the neighborhood rental lot. Turnaround could be done in a minute.

 

 

---

[Dave Petrie]

[Dennis Manning]

 

From: kirston henderson

Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:44 AM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

You're quite an exception taking your whole family on most of your car trips. The majority of my trips didn't include my two kids or my wife for that matter. When they were young we had a Honda Civic. Smaller than most PRT designs and we did just fine.

[Dennis Manning]

 

From: kirston henderson

Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:13 AM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

If you can't trust them to make the right selection make the selection for them.

[Richard Gronning]

It's selected for them before they leave the station.

[Jack Slade]

You give good reasons for not using a bus,  but no reasons why PRT would not be built closer.  You are also assuming EV's will take up the slack, that streets will be maintained forever,  and that lots more roads will be built for an increasing population.   I thought engneers were taught "never assune anything"   Jack Slade --- On Tue, 2/7/12, kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

[Jack Slade]

Kirston,  this is not a valid objection,  and I think you know it.  If I call for 3 cars on the control board,  whether I do it manually or electronically,  they will certainly all program for the same destination.   Also,  from a previous post to Dennis:  I do not often see families with many children on busses,  and if I were a rider I would Thank God for that.

Jack Slade --- On Tue, 2/7/12, kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes" To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Roy Reynolds]

Agreed, families don't ride public transportation, and not even alot of people in pairs.  What's analogous for me in this is using PRT in and around theme parks and large hotel concentrations -- obviously as in Anaheim.  My observations have been that family groups rarely exceed five -- three or four is common (let's face it, Disney ain't cheap).  One other thing to consider in this area -- baby strollers -- Disney and its boundary streets are inundated with them.

RR

[Richard Gronning]

Then the Skyweb concept, 3 seats + 2 in  jump seats, would be completely valid.
Dick

[kirston henderson]

on 2/7/12 12:24 PM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

You give good reasons for not using a bus,  but no reasons why PRT would not be built closer.  You are also assuming EV's will take up the slack, that streets will be maintained forever,  and that lots more roads will be built for an increasing population.

I thought engneers were taught "never assune anything"

   The problem is very simple and that is cost.  As for the streets, they have to be maintained for such things as fire trucks, ambulances, and heavy machinery needed for maintenance of water, sewer, etc. lines.

Kirston Henderson

[Jack Slade]

Think back to the evolution of cars:  you did not park in your driveway,  because houses had a barn or an equipment building.  there were no paved streets,  and if anybody had suggested that someday all streets would have to be paved,  he would have a candidate for the looney bin.   Yet I am suggesting that,  a long time from now, with the smallest, cheapest guideway possible,  PRT will cover all streets.  PRT supports may also carry water and utility lines.  Pavement is not needed for fire trucks.  When sewer lines break,  the first vehicle digs up the pavement,  so that the others can work.  And I do mean a long time,  just as we have been paving roads for a long time....over a hundred years,  and half of them are still gravel.   All thinking done in times when money seemed in unlimited supply is cancelled;  the barrel is empty,  and nobody knows how to refill it.

Jack Slade --- On Tue, 2/7/12, kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes" To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Richard Gronning]

I thought that I'd take a stab at this post.  See remarks interspersed...

On 2/7/2012 3:51 PM, Jack Slade wrote:

Think back to the evolution of cars:  you did not park in your driveway,  because houses had a barn or an equipment building.  there were no paved streets,  and if anybody had suggested that someday all streets would have to be paved,  he would have a candidate for the looney bin.

The way that transportation people see us now, is what you're saying...

Yet I am suggesting that,  a long time from now, with the smallest, cheapest guideway possible,  PRT will cover all streets.

Ah yes, the expense. Then there are other expenses, like street maintenance, snow removal, etc. What if we could do away with these expenses?

How about this for a fantasy? I would say that the idea of DM isn't needed. Why? Because (in my fantasy) I see an overhead guideway going to every house. The "garage" or carport would be on the 2nd level and the vehicle would be a PRT vehicle - or two. If more were needed, one could be called up. (cellphone, computer, etc.) Maintenance for streets and snow plowing expenses would simply go away. I think that the economics of such an infrastructure actually would make sense.

PRT supports may also carry water and utility lines.  Pavement is not needed for fire trucks.  When sewer lines break,  the first vehicle digs up the pavement,  so that the others can work.  And I do mean a long time,  just as we have been paving roads for a long time....over a hundred years,  and half of them are still gravel.

So, if I got this right, we would have PRT-type fire trucks? How about PRT garbage vehicles? The only real problem that I see is with construction vehicles and moving vans. Yes, how to build a PRT-type cement mixer.(?)

All thinking done in times when money seemed in unlimited supply is cancelled;  the barrel is empty,  and nobody knows how to refill it.

You're right! And everybody on this list has ideas on how to connect - provide a better infrastructure - that could do away with the costly, inefficient one that we presently have.

Dick

[Jack Slade]

At a fire we need water,  pumps,  and firefighters.    If the guideway already has the water,  PRT could bring the pumps and firefighters faster than any present system.  Having your own PRT cars would be more expensive than system-owned cars,  but it would be a one-in-a-lifetime purchase.  That space below the cars would be storage space,  which many garages already are.   Jack Slade --- On Fri, 2/10/12, Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> wrote:

From: Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am> Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes" To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[kirston henderson]

on 2/10/12 11:42 AM, Jack Slade at skytr...@rogers.com wrote:

At a fire we need water,  pumps,  and firefighters.  

If the guideway already has the water,  PRT could bring the pumps and firefighters faster than any present system.  Having your own PRT cars would be more expensive than system-owned cars,  but it would be a one-in-a-lifetime purchase.  That space below the cars would be storage space,  which many garages already are.

   I hope that they don't need any ladders for fight the fires.  In that case, I suppose that it is a case of burn-baby-burn!

Kirston Henderson

[eph]

Or pumps and the juice to use them (even if the power is out)!


F.

On Friday, 10 February 2012 13:14:01 UTC-5, kirston henderson wrote:

on 2/10/12 11:42 AM, Jack Slade

[Jack Slade]

The main factor is a fire is getting the equipment there while the fire is small. You must know that I am talking about residential areas,  not high-rise buildings on major streets.  You must also know that ladder trucks can only reach the first 5 floors.  First thoughts on anything new are never complete,  so why not just try to think outside the box a little,  and pack in the "this is the way we have always done it"  comments?   Jack Slade

--- On Fri, 2/10/12, kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes" To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Jeff Davis]

I have been reading the dialogue in the emails below with some interest, including the criticisms of transportation professionals.  Seems to me that I have heard about this kind of rhetoric before.  In the early 1900's the Airship was the latest technology in transportation and airship advocates continually lobbied to gain public support.  Advocates of airship tried hard to get people and governments to throw money at this new technology.  Take a look at the web address; 'http://www.airships.net/futurism'.  Airship advocates wanted everybody to jump on the airship bandwagon and sing the airship song along with the band.

 

Notice in the middle of the web page "Goodyear president Paul Litchfield and publicist Hugh Allen included the following pictures in their 1945 book, WHY? Why has America no Rigid Airships?".

 

I suggest for further reading search on; airship advocacy.

 

Before you start criticizing transportation professionals such as myself for not jumping on the PRT bandwagon and singing the PRT song, try to step back and take a big picture view.  New technologies and ideas should be properly vetted, and scrutinized (not the same as criticized).  I am happy to learn about new technologies and ideas, but I also expect the advocates and advocacy groups to perform competent and thorough analyses.

 

Note that independent assessments by knowledgeable professionals will help support your PRT cause more than sales people who only want to sell PRT systems to the exclusion of considering other viable technologies.  When suppliers misrepresent or exaggerate what a new technology can offer, it doesn't help your cause.  It also doesn't help to believe and make statements that PRT technology is too complicated and complex for experienced transportation professionals outside the pro-PRT community to understand.

 

If you want the PRT Systems that you are trying to sell to succeed, get independent and unbiased peer reviews of designs and implementations.  Listen to honest critiques, and respond how your technology will address those issues found.  Finally, make good and deliver on what is promised and contractually obligated.

 

Jeff.

 

 

---

From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Manning
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 2:26 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

 

Jack:

 

Amen. The mass transit mind set that says you have to have big vehicles to avoid congestion problems just won't go away. I'll call it the GRT syndrome.

 

It was the GRT syndrome that puffed up Morgantown. My sense is that part of the syndrome has infected Vectus. Vectus is probably getting seduced into thinking GRT will be more saleable  to cities. Perhaps, but the price Vectus will pay is producing a product that the end users don't want. They want individual transportation.

 

Keynes quote lives: "The real difficulty in changing any enterprise lies not in developing new
ideas but in escaping from old one."

Dennis 

 

From: Jack Slade

Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2012 10:36 AM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

 

I am sure you already know some of our views.  Lets start with car size:  You get ON a Bus,  you get IN a car.  This is becoming GRT because somebody doesn't understand PRT,  for the same reason other systems have retained walk-on cars....they are too used to busses. Jack Slade --- On Sun, 2/5/12, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes" To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Date: Sunday, February 5, 2012, 5:33 PM I see 109 views this morning, but only 4 "likes". How to explain? I've had at least 12 messages saying that the viewer liked it. Perhaps people are just not indicating that sentiment by clicking the thumbs up symbol? Or ---?

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Michael Weidler]

I don't see why construction vehicles would be an issue - they are designed to be used off-road. Most likely streets would devolve to dirt roads, so there would still be ground access if necessary.

---

From: Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 9:58 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

[Michael Weidler]

So how does this GRT service work? I'm now cloistered with 15 other riders - none of who are going different stations.  Does the GRT vehicle stop at every stop? Does it only stop at the stops selected by the people on the vehicle? Does the GRT vehicle pick more passengers when it does stop?

---

From: Nathan Koren <nko...@gmail.com>
To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2012 1:12 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

No, they're adding GRT for a very good reason: because although PRT
can be designed to handle sharp fluxes in demand, it isn't necessarily
economical to do so. In many cases, a mixed-mode PRT/GRT system is the
best response, and I'm glad to see Vectus advancing the industry this
way.

Let me illustrate this with a somewhat contrived example. Imagine you
have an application which operates 18 hours per day, and during most
hours, has 1,000 passenger-trips heading in all directions. Let's say
that each trip takes five minutes and carries 1.5 passengers per
vehicle, and 30% of the vehicle-trips are empty (to accommodate
repositioning vehicles). Do the math, and you'll find that this system
requires 94 vehicles to serve that level of demand on a continuous
basis. Not bad, to carry 18,000 passenger-trips per day with just 94
vehicles, right?

However there is also a rush hour in the morning, and another one in
the evening, when 4,000 passengers trips per hour need to take place.
How does a PRT system handle this?

1.) You can add more PRT vehicles and run them as before. Now you've
just bought a fleet of 376 vehicles, 282 of which will go unused for
almost 90% of each day. You also need to make the stations
equivalently larger in order to accommodate this number of berthing
vehicles. You can't amortise the cost of a PRT vehicle (or berth) by
utilising it for just 2 hours per day, so that's going to
significantly worsen your business case.

2.) You can create incentives for ride-sharing and ways of
accommodating it within the ticketing and passenger-flow systems. In
practice, it's possible to get average vehicle occupancies of up to
three people in most circumstances, although this requires quite a bit
of creativity to do successfully. Now you only need to buy 188
vehicles (and equivalently larger stations), but you're still not
going to be able to amortise 94 of them.

3.) Because most of the commuting fluxes like this typically appear
along predictable corridors, you can serve the rush-hour demand with
GRT vehicles. Unlike a PRT vehicle, GRT vehicles can carry people
until they are standing-room-only. So, in this hypothetical system,
you can serve the excess 3,000 passenger-trips during each rush hour
with 24 18-person GRT vehicles. You'll still have difficulty
amortising these vehicles, but since they're only (at a guess) about
twice the price of a PRT vehicle -- and the passenger-side space
requirements for GRT vehicles are also relatively modest, reducing the
cost burden on the stations as well -- you'll get a much better
business case from this scenario than from the other two.

This might sound like a rather contrived scenario, but in practice,
many of the business cases that we're seeing actually look quite a lot
like this. This is mostly because interest in transport solution is
highest in areas where peak commuting fluxes are causing the severe
problems. There are certainly a lot of urban transport problems that
don't resemble this example, but that isn't where the market is at
right now. Vectus is doing a very smart thing by catering to the
demand pattern of the market, as well as making sure that the GRT
infrastructure is fully PRT capable as well.

Cheers,

Nathan

On Feb 5, 6:36 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I am sure you already know some of our views.  Lets start with car size:  You get ON a Bus,  you get IN a car.  This is becoming GRT because somebody doesn't understand PRT,  for the same reason other systems have retained walk-on cars....they are too used to busses.
>
> Jack Slade
> --- On Sun, 2/5/12, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
> From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
> Subject: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Sunday, February 5, 2012, 5:33 PM
>
> I see 109 views this morning, but only 4 "likes". How to explain? I've had at least 12 messages saying that the viewer liked it. Perhaps people are just not indicating that sentiment by clicking the thumbs up symbol? Or ---?
>

> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://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-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Weidler]

---

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:51 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

=========================
Agreed that PRT is not likely to be any closer to your house than the bus. However, you wouldn't have to wait for it once you got to the stop and there would be no transfers involved. I am surprised that the bus doesn't go anywhere near your offices. Why isn't White Settlement served by the city transit? Western Hills, which is immediately south of White Settlement across I-30, has bus service.

[Michael Weidler]

How about on those few times the whole 6+ person family needs to go somewhere all at once they just utilize their flex car account and rent a van (they won't fit in the average automobile either)? There is always going to be somebody for whom PRT doesn't work. For those people I simply say use the roads. We're not planning to tear them out any time soon.

---

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 8:44 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] New Vectus PRT video - only 4 "likes"

[Kirston Henderson]

On Apr 1, 2012, at 6:06 AM, Michael Weidler wrote:

Agreed that PRT is not likely to be any closer to your house than the bus. However, you wouldn't have to wait for it once you got to the stop and there would be no transfers involved. I am surprised that the bus doesn't go anywhere near your offices. Why isn't White Settlement served by the city transit? Western Hills, which is immediately south of White Settlement across I-30, has bus service.

Western Hills is a part of the city of Fort Worth.  White Settlement is a separate city that has no bus service.

Kirston

[Richard Gronning]

There are a at least two ways that the devolution of our road structure would effect such movement of construction equipment, moving vans, etc.

1. Speed,
1. If there are only, say sidewalks or dirt roads that construction trucks, moving vans, cement mixers can travel on, then the speed of arrival is considerably altered. The weight limits are altered, the pay for transportation goes up.
   
2. Ability to arrive. I remember the '70s when I was laid off and drove an 18 wheeler semi. I broke a chain that held down a load and stopped to fix it, rather than dragging the chain out in traffic. It was an Illinois highway in the Spring. I was too green to realize what might happen, but it did happen. I sank in up to my axles on the highway shoulder that would have easily held the truck in the other 3 seasons. If we only had sidewalks and dirt roads, You, in Iowa, should realize that the load might not get there at all, especially in the Spring.