Re: PRT headways - any 1/2 sec. evidence? (Important Cabintaxi details)

[Jerry Schneider]

>From: "Marsden Burger" <cabint...@msn.com>
>To: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
>Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: PRT headways - any 1/2 evidence?
>Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:16:52 -0500
>Jerry,
>
>That Cabintaxi was run at .5 second separations is indeed
>true. While it was operated on the test track at .5 second
>separations at times to see how the system preformed, it was never
>planned to operate at these short headways, and would have required
>extensive testing to consider what changes may have been needed to
>have prepared for this style of operation. Its development was
>under the understanding that its operational scenario would require
>the ability to provide a safe "brickwall" stop. Therefore, design
>requirements for sub second separation operation were never carried
>out. Endurance testing at .5 seconds was never a part of the
>program, and endurance testing, even though the present development
>efforts seem to ignore this, is critical to really know if a design
>concept works. (Otherwise one ends up with Morgantown systems that
>might function one off, but will be never built again - or worse the
>Old Dominion maglev that never really worked at all but did so on
>its limited test facility.) So I guess the answer is that if being
>run on a test track is the definition of "tested," it was tested,
>but there was never extensive testing carried out with the goal of
>showing that .5 second separations would be acceptable for public
>transit applications of the Cabintaxi technology. That said, I know
>of no reason at this point that makes me think that Cabintaxi could
>not be capable of doing 5 second separations if they were considered
>desirable in a given applications. However, without a test track to
>accomplish large scale endurance testing, it would seem to me that
>an evolutionary process would be the only responsible way to get at
>this condition.
>
>I believe the value of a system that can provide safe and reliable
>three second headway operation is enormous compared to existing
>systems. For many reasons, it is harder to develop a system that
>can provide a safe brickwall stop under 3 seconds than a system
>operated without the brickwall requirement, but Cabintaxi was able
>to accomplish the 3 second brickwall stop. Evolving into a system
>that is able to operate at sub second separations has always
>appeared to me to be the best way to address the issue of .5 second headways.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Marsden
>
>From: <mailto:j...@peak.org>Jerry Schneider
>To: <mailto:cabint...@msn.com>cabint...@msn.com
>Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2008 12:12 PM
>Subject: Fwd: [t-i] Re: PRT headways - any 1/2 evidence?
>
>Marsden,
>
>Is there any reason to think this info is not credible? It comes
>from the U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment supporting
>panel report, June 1975
>
>
> >On Feb 9, 4:56 am,
> "<mailto:robb...@2getthere.eu>robb...@2getthere.eu [2getthere]"
> ><<mailto:robb...@2getthere.eu>robb...@2getthere.eu> wrote:
> > > I guess I am still not convinced sub-second headways are possible...
> > > (and now it is morning so I don't have the excuse I had last night).
> > >
> > > Robbert
> > >
> >
> >I just found a source that says Cabinentaxi was tested at 0.5 secs:
> >
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=tI9AuKexGLgC&pg=PA244&lpg=PA244&dq
> =Cabinentaxi+headway&source=web&ots=mWHl5OoZcL&sig=1Ijs_q34ktQKJEXpg9bOtsHooQM
> >

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

I have to agree with the conclusion that making close headways is unnecessary.  We picked a 1.923 second headway as a reasonable interval and that gets us our 9000 passengers per hour per low cost guideway.  If you need more capacity simply add another parallel guideway rather than risk human life trying one-upsmanships on the stats.  Our grid patent which is now available in Chinese as of today provides four or five parallel guideways on each grid line with the entire city gridded with lines.  This gives tremendous overcapacity without the risk of close headways. 

There is a beam equation problem with platooning in that the beams at safe headways only hold up one car at a time.  If you double the load on the guideway you much more than double the strength requirement of the beam section.  Either you add more poles and visual intrusion or you make the beam taller and heavier.  If you make the beam heavier and tall not only do you get more visual intrusion but you get self-weighting of the beam so it has to be stronger still.  If you can keep the headways at least where one car is on one span then there is not a lot of infrastructure cost associated with risk-taking but to attempt linking the cars with a cable, rope or virtual rope so close as to draft off each other will hit the wall for cost of guideway IMHO.  Simpler is usually better than more complex and keeping the cars at least one span apart is not that big of a throughput hit.  The platooning idea is bologna and has no support from any wind tunnel test I have seen and I have been asking.  The only report I have seen that supports any kind of drafting uses poor minivan shapes as the poster children.  These designs are so crappy they do not deserve any consideration.  If there is a study using force gages not supposition, then I may be convinced about the relative value of drafting a car.  Drafting a little bicycle is one thing but drafting a car is totally different and needs scientific data to support aerodynamic cars following too damn close to be safe just to save the fraction of a penny a mile in energy cost.  Please put numbers to the claims and equate that to some measure of money or energy which I can translate to money on any one day.  We have done the video simulation and video animation of the crash scenario of a set of TriTrack cars coming onto a crane taking out a section of guideway.  That stop requires extreme stopping ability to save the lives of all the passengers in the simulated cars.  The stopping G forces are far in excess of what a rubber tire vehicle can do just sitting on the top of pavement going back 6 cars.  You will only get about 1.1 Gs on the best of tires so when you try to stop a platoon at 180 mph you are going to need to grip the guideway with brake pad material and squeeze very hard at that.  The squeezing force will need to be exerted across the guideway and the guideway cannot compress or spread out under the pressure to stop.  I have offered the calculation web address before so you can easily calculate the needed G force for any one stop scenario.  I am at a loss for why extreme headways keep coming up given the danger involved.  If you are trying to switch during a platoon then that is just crazy.  The moment you let go of a lead car and go on your own you are at the total mercy of Murphy and your life can end instantly over such an event that happens just as you break or attempt to join.  I do not think it helps to have these discussions where you accept extreme risk for others just to pump up a number that can be pumped up by just building one more guideway. 

I challenge each of you to give me a dollar number for how much you gain by platooning cars on a guideway.  Once you have those numbers in hand we can discuss the trade off in safety. 

I attended the CAMPO (Capitol Area Metropolitan Area Planning Organization) tonight.  Nothing to report other than I had an excellent conversation with the local Sierra Club spokesman who was speaking at the public comment mike later.  I am starting to know the faces of the players here in Austin and it is not a very big group.  As soon as the TxDot study is released I will be signing up to speak at the following CAMPO meeting for the 3 minutes allotted.  With the study in hand it will make more of an impact than a lone citizen speaking out. 

The limit of headways is tip to tail (20 feet at 40 mph) as they enter at the slower speed.  This still gives a spread out at high speed but at the entry location you run the risk of a fender bender and that would not impress anyone. 

Jerry Roane

[eph]

I have read the study done with minivans, not sure a regular guideway
car would be much more aerodynamic. I understand for TriTrack this
isn't the case.

High G stops require restraints (I think you mentioned having passive
airbag?) that most systems don't/can't have.

The join/split problem I addressed in the "Merge/diverge
platooning..." thread. Have you seen it? I had trouble posting it
maybe it didn't go through?

F.

[Jerry Roane]

We use constant restraint that does not touch like a seat belt or deploy like an explosive airbag.  The restraint is a padded part of the car that holds you in your seat if you hold on to it.  Our normal start and stop is at .69 Gs so you will be using this padded portion of the car's interior each time you take a ride.  In an emergency stop it will help save your life without giving the seat belt rash like cheap lab/shoulder slings do.  If you have ridden a new roller coaster there are a lot of these restraint systems that are durable, soft and don't require a nylon belt. 

Jerry Roane

[eph]

Roller coaster restraints - tried tested and true. Have you
considered the "you must be this tall to ride" factor?

F.

On Feb 12, 8:56 am, "Jerry Roane" <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We use constant restraint that does not touch like a seat belt or deploy
> like an explosive airbag. The restraint is a padded part of the car that
> holds you in your seat if you hold on to it. Our normal start and stop is
> at .69 Gs so you will be using this padded portion of the car's interior
> each time you take a ride. In an emergency stop it will help save your life
> without giving the seat belt rash like cheap lab/shoulder slings do. If you
> have ridden a new roller coaster there are a lot of these restraint systems
> that are durable, soft and don't require a nylon belt.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

> > > on the top of pavement going back 6 cars. You will only get about 1.1Gs on

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Roane]

Yes this is a personal car so the car will fit the persons.  Same for child seats or infant seats the car restraint system will be fitted to the body type of the passenger or any infirmities they may have also.

Jerry Roane

[Dennis Manning]

Not much has been discussed on this list about the value of involvement of large real estate developers. They can be the link or the way to capture the real estate value increase up front. That's why I thought this little news item from TP Plus was noteworthy:

 

A large Dutch real estate development firm named Heijmans (9000 employees) is planning to market, design, and build PRT in Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg.

 

No further details available, but it seems like something worth staying tuned to.

 

Also this email from a fellow involved with PRT and a real estate developer (see www.beebeedevelopments.co.uk/ ) in Daventry:

 

I'll respond to your other email as soon as I can get to it, but I just wanted to say that yes, I'm definitely pursuing this angle.  On Friday my team from Oxford had a meeting with this company, which has about 25,000 homes on tap in Northamptonshire country alone, and is keenly interested in incorporating PRT into their developments.  They're still a bit trepedatious about financing and operational side of things, however, so I'm going to see if I can't work them through that over the next few months.  If I can come up with something that they like, it's possible that they could move forward with an all-privately-financed system *very* rapidly.

Also on Friday, my team met with city officials at Daventry, where things are moving along nicely.  They should be officially issuing their tender for a PRT pilot system before the month is out, and have done a lot of innovative work on sort of contractual agreements that a public-private partnership will need in order to make such PRT systems practical.  Being a public project, this will probably move more slowly than an all-private project could, but I fully expect that we will see construction under way within 2-3 years.

 

Dennis   

[eph]

That makes sense. I wonder if having a buggie with 5 mph bumpers that
gets tossed when on the track makes some sense? It's not as space
efficient as the triangular sections, but the buggies could go park
themselves. The wheels aren't needed when on the track and must add
some drag? The tail section could fold in, sorta like this (from the
top):

^
||
\/

^
||
||

^
||
/\

^
_ ||_

^
\||/

^
||||

I would leave 2 funky half-shells on the side of the vehicle which
wouldn't matter much at low speed travel. Don't know how it works
with the rear windshield though. Even the rear windshield isn't
needed on the guideway...

F.

On Feb 12, 11:45 am, "Jerry Roane" <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes this is a personal car so the car will fit the persons. Same for child
> seats or infant seats the car restraint system will be fitted to the body
> type of the passenger or any infirmities they may have also.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Sergey Prokhorenko]

15 cm headway can be much safer than 2 sec headway. It depends on other things (control algorithms, network topology and so on). Nobody suggested to improve capacity at the expense of human lifes.

 

Sergey Prokhorenko
sergeypr...@yahoo.com.au

[robbert@2getthere.eu [2getthere]]

Dennis,

Heijmans is a construction company (also doing some developments, but
that's not their core business). Real estate developers are interesting
potential customers, though.

Robbert

Dennis Manning schreef:

> Not much has been discussed on this list about the value
> of involvement of large real estate developers. They can be the link
> or the way to capture the real estate value increase up front. That's
> why I thought this little news item from TP Plus was noteworthy:
>
> A large Dutch real estate development firm named Heijmans (9000
> employees) is planning to market, design, and build PRT in Holland,
> Belgium, and Luxembourg.
>
> No further details available, but it seems like something worth
> staying tuned to.
>
> Also this email from a fellow involved with PRT and a real estate
> developer (see www.beebeedevelopments.co.uk/

> <http://www.beebeedevelopments.co.uk/> ) in Daventry:

[Jay Andress]

I don't quite understand why a developer would put up the money for a PRT or DM project. Perhaps in the Middle-East where government and developers are sometimes the same group or maybe a large corporation such  as Microsoft or British Airways, but not with US developers. Would developers support it...probably if it was to the benefit of their development (after the Las Vegas experience with monorail it could be difficult even to get developer acceptance). Any PRT project has got to have mostly government money...that is why you need to start with government, not the developers.

[robbert@2getthere.eu [2getthere]]

Jay,

If you start with the governments, we'll start with the private
developers (airports being amongst them). In the UAE all the
developments which could use PRT are being developed by real estate
developers, not by the government. RTA (Road and Transit Authority) is
only involved in monorail like projects.

(semi) private developments are going to decide much quicker. We focused
on governments for a couple of years but it never amounted to much -
interest yes, but action no. Basically operating on a 4 year term, you
have to do business in year 1 and start building in year 2. Year 3 and 4
no decisions will be taken as projects can't be finished in time to
contribute to being re-elected :-)

Robbert

Jay Andress schreef:

> I don't quite understand why a developer would put up the money for a
> PRT or DM project. Perhaps in the Middle-East where government and
> developers are sometimes the same group or maybe a large corporation
> such as Microsoft or British Airways, but not with US developers.
> Would developers support it...probably if it was to the benefit of
> their development (after the Las Vegas experience with monorail it
> could be difficult even to get developer acceptance). Any PRT project
> has got to have mostly government money...that is why you need to
> start with government, not the developers.
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 3:58 AM, rob...@2getthere.eu

> <mailto:rob...@2getthere.eu> [2getthere] <rob...@2getthere.eu

[rot...@zahav.net.il]

In Japan it is common for transit companies to collect
substantial amount of their costs by real estate development.
New rail lines raise real estate values along the lines,
including station and commercial centers owned by the transit
companies, and by this way reimburse the building and
development costs of the new transit lines.

Oded Roth,
http://www.transportationet.com

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:13:01 -0500
>From: "Jay Andress" <andre...@gmail.com>
>Subject: [t-i] Re: Real Estate Developers
>To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>
> I don't quite understand why a developer would put
> up the money for a PRT or DM project. Perhaps in the
> Middle-East where government and developers are
> sometimes the same group or maybe a large
> corporation such as Microsoft or British Airways,
> but not with US developers. Would developers support
> it...probably if it was to the benefit of their
> development (after the Las Vegas experience with
> monorail it could be difficult even to get developer
> acceptance). Any PRT project has got to have mostly
> government money...that is why you need to start
> with government, not the developers.
>
> On Feb 13, 2008 3:58 AM, rob...@2getthere.eu

> <br
>

[Jay Andress]

Robbert,

 

   As I mentioned, in some countries, the government and private industry are so closely connected that they are basically the same group and therefore you can just work with the developer (ie: Middle-East). I think this also applies in China where the government  is the majority shareholder in 30 of the top 32 publicly traded companies. It also applies in many countries where corruption is widespread (developers pay off government...I won't insult anyone by listing the countries...just ask Siemens).

   However in the US, developers have little control over government and are not the same people. In many urban areas developers are loathed and not popular. In a situation that many in this group are familiar with, Cincinnati's solicitation of PRT proposals about seven years ago. Bill Butler a big developer wanted to build a monorail or PRT from the airport to downtown. He never really had government on board (the governmental agency "VisionQuest" was really only quasi-governmental advisory group). You need to involve politicians from day one. They are the ones that will help with bonds and FTA co-funding.

    I think some people are frustrated that their efforts with government haven't produced results and have come to the conclusion that government is the wrong approach, therefore private developers is the right choice. IMHO, this group ( ATRA)has never really mounted a successful PR/lobbying effort to go after government, specifically politicians. A perfect example is Ed Anderson and his PRT effort (probably the closest anyone has come to building PRT in the US... EVER). He moved it ahead because he got the support of several Congressmen and the Council in Rosemont, Illinois.

[rot...@zahav.net.il]

Jay,

Whether In the most democratic and non-corrupt countries or
not, PRT development is a substantial public matter that
demands support of local or state government. As minimal
requirements PRT development needs public rights of way and
rights of land use, which are public matters. Besides, PRT
developers may ask for public subsidies, or at least fair
chances to compete with subsidized competitors such as LRT or
buses. There are more political aspects such as the natural
political care for vest interests and their employees,
sometimes more than the general public interests.

It might be easy to develop PRT with governmental help in
monarchies than with the "help" of democratic bureaucracy.

Oded Roth,
http://www.transportationet.com


---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:12:56 -0500
>From: "Jay Andress" <andre...@gmail.com>
>Subject: [t-i] Re: Real Estate Developers
>To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>

[van...@comcast.net]

Ed Anderson got the support of Rosemont, Congressmen and the transit authorities in northeastern Illinois because Raytheon was supporting the project.  Government will act in response to people with money and clout and, usually, not otherwise. 

 

Van

[Jay Andress]

My understanding is that Ed Anderson got the support of some of these groups on his own BEFORE Raytheon was involved, so I don't agree with you that you have to have clout...but it helps. That is precisely why we need to band together (get ATRA to organize) so we too can have some clout. One of the problems with creative technology is that if it is perceived that only one person believes in it, it is seen as eccentric. But if a group of people believe in it and they come from diverse backgrounds then the opportunity for acceptance and success is greatly improved.
 

--
new contact info: andre...@gmail.com

[Dennis Manning]

Real estate developers through increased land/building values should reap large benefits from PRT development.

 

The rationale isn't much different than a real estate developer of a high rise building paying for the elevator.

 

Dennis

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

From: Jay Andress

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:13 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Real Estate Developers

[Kirston Henderson]

on 2/14/08 9:48 AM, Jay Andress at andre...@gmail.com wrote:

> My understanding is that Ed Anderson got the support of some of these groups
> on his own BEFORE Raytheon was involved, so I don't agree with you that you
> have to have clout...but it helps. That is precisely why we need to band
> together (get ATRA to organize) so we too can have some clout. One of the
> problems with creative technology is that if it is perceived that only one
> person believes in it, it is seen as eccentric. But if a group of people
> believe in it and they come from diverse backgrounds then the opportunity
> for acceptance and success is greatly improved.

And what is wrong with a private raising private capital and then
proceeding to develop and build a demonstrator system and then proceed to
market it? It seems to have been the basis for most successful enterprises
for a long time. I think that the last thing that is needed is a design by
committee or government involvement.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®

[Jerry Schneider]

At 09:04 AM 2/14/2008, you wrote:
>Real estate developers through increased land/building values should
>reap large benefits from PRT development.
>
>The rationale isn't much different than a real estate developer of a
>high rise building paying for the elevator.

In the case of the high rise building, you have two choices, the
elevator or the stairs. In the case of a low rise residential
development, you will typically have roads, garages and parking
available (i.e. automobility) plus walking on fairly level
terrain.

Of course, there are lots of different kinds of real estate
developments. It would be helpful to try to sort them out and to
categorize the reasons why PRT would increase land/building values.
Clearly, it would provide a mobility option and connections to
various destinations. PRT might allow higher densities that might
lead to higher ROIs if auto facilities were not required or
included. There might even be some public subsidies provided to
encourage "renewal" of a blighted area that would not otherwise be
developed (like those enjoyed by streetcar projects in some cases).

Depending on its design, it might also have some negative impacts
(e.g. visual intrusion, stations, maybe a little noise, etc.) If PRT
would enable the development of cheap land that has very poor access
that cannot be overcome without high costs, then the real estate ROI
calculation might depend on the benefits derived from the cheap land
versus the cost (capital and operating) of the PRT network. Then,
there is the sizzle factor which is hard to quantify but it certainly
might help with sales. But, it PRT access is the only access
provided, some auto-loving types might not be influenced too much by
the sizzle factor.

Conversations with a variety of real estate developers would probably
be the best way to get some clarity on this matter. A
stimulus/response-type workshop sponsored by the Urban Land Institute
and ATRA might be an effective way to get this kind of dialog to occur.

[Michael Weidler]

Two words....Traffic mitigation.

[Michael Weidler]

Yet another difference between "over there" and "over here". Over here, airports (the major ones anyway) are not privately owned. They are usually owned by quasi-governmental organizations called port authorities. 

[Michael Weidler]

Jay, Ed wasn't building that system in Rosemont - Raytheon was.

[Jay Andress]

Michael,

 

    That is such a minor point and you are incorrect. Ed Anderson was deeply involved with Raytheon and had a big stake in its success.

[Jay Andress]

  As a small real estate developer who happens to rub shoulders with some of the big guys I will tell you, you are wasting your time. Developers are constantly trying to cut costs (they will include an elevator because it allows them to have multi-story buildings). If the developers aren't cutting costs, then their bankers are.

  I have never said you should exclude developers...but if you are counting on them for your funding...forget it.

  Obviously each one of us has their own thoughts on how to make their project succeed.  Time will tell who is right.

[Dennis Manning]

Why wouldn't PRT allow developers to effectively have the same thing, i.e. higher densities because of lower parking needs?

[van...@comcast.net]

Jay:

 

Ed Anderson was indeed deeply involved in the Rosemont project and had a big stake in its success, but it was Raytheon money, around $20,000,000 as I recall, that made the project proceed as far as it went.  Otherwise it would have gone nowhere.   

 

It is hardly a minor point.  You do need people with money that are willing to invest.

 

This is not to say that Raytheon is to be commended.  In my opinion Raytheon did a lousy job in designing its system. Raytheon did not use Ed Anderson's design (just ask Ed), made the system much more expensive and less attractive than would have easily been possible. I believe its ts lack of success has been a set back to acceptance of PRT systems. 

 

Van

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Jay Andress" <andre...@gmail.com>

[Richard Gronning]

Well, at that time Ed had first promoted it and then was working for Raytheon. Ed said that it had taken one hour of talk to sell PRT to the head of Chicago's Regional Transit Authority.

[Jay Andress]

How would you have lower parking with a developer financed PRT system. Where would people park...in the adjoining developer's parking lot?

new contact info: andre...@gmail.com

[Walter Brewer]

It would be humourous if it were not such a tragic waste.

A small city north of San Diego is on the  north/south 40 mile commuter line. Good sevice, but its contribution to reduce the congestion on I-5 alongside is neglegible. But City leaders and a developer want to anchor a Transit Oriented Development around the rail line. Parking is limited at the station so the centerpiece for the transit development would be a 500 or so space multilevel parking structure. The multiuse buildings, condos etc would cluster around that and the station. Question; Where are the bus feeder lines one would expect to lure rides out of cars instead of facilitating their use?

The city is also seeking a grant to set up parking reservations for a price. What happens when the reserved section is full and other not I don't know.

 

More generally, including Jerry S's posting on the Energy Dept interest in density to reduce energy use; And I've said this before.

Taking 1000 as a population unit in a community and densify 50% to 1500. Assume 50, (5%), walk/bike, and 50, (5%), use transit.  900 use cars. Even if w/b and transit use as a share of the new 1500 total population is tripled to 225 for each, car traffic INCREASES 17%. That will increase energy consumption in the same area for cars, exacerbated by more congestion. Transit might save some per trip with better occupancy per vehicle if number of trips stays constant. But to supply adequate service transit trips would have to be added. To hold car trips to the original before densification, w/b and tr trips would have to increase by a factor of 6, and absorb 40% of all trips. If density is doubled to 2000, car traffic increases 55% if w/b and tr triple as above, or w/b plus tr have to absorb 55% of trips to keep auto traffic from increasing. These scenarios are unlikely to reduce energy consumption when energy/passenger-mile is about at par for cars and transit to begin with. The argument exists trips can be eliminated completely, but then the community's productivity has to be revalued. Transportation is not the end product.

The smart growth lobby marches on!

 

Walt Brewer

[Dennis Manning]

I guess you don't think in terms of auto free zones.

[Jack Slade]

It was my understanding from news articles that I saw that the US govt gave Raytheon a 50 million grant to develop that system.  They then took Ed's design and changed it to something that they were sure was better. Remember the story of the camel being a horse designed by a committee?

 

Jack Slade

van...@comcast.net wrote:

[Jack Slade]

If they used PRT why would they need parking? Parking what?

 

Jack Slade

Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jay Andress]

Jack,

 

  Unless you have a complete PRT system you still need parking. This is the "Catch-22" of depending on developers to build your PRT System. The developer may have the interest in the technology, but unless he builds an entire system where is the benefit (people will still have to drive cars to a partial system and the developer will still have to build the parking spaces), and of course he doesn't have the money to build an entire system. This is why the pursuit of developers (with the exception of the Middle-east, China and a few other places where government and private interest are one and the same and they can afford to build entire cities) is a waste of time.

[Jay Andress]

  I never heard about the $50 million dollar grant. I don't believe this is true (maybe the grant would come when the system was built, but until that time there was no federal money). The main problem that was discussed at the Minneapolis Convention, which I attended with my beautiful MonoMobile prototype, back in 1998? (where Ed Anderson was the featured hot shot) was that Raytheon for a number of reasons had over-designed the cab of the PRT (it looked very similar to ULTRA). The main reason was that ADA requirements required access to wheel cars and they wanted a four person vehicle. As the cab got bigger so did the track and so did the costs until it just didn't make sense. (Jerry Schneider was one of the main organizers of the Minneapolis Convention and was a key player in all that happened.)

   Many PRT designers have not even begun to think about ADA and the need for elevators at PRT stations. Is this included in the prices of their systems? It seems to me that the cost of the stations will far exceed the costs of the track and the PRT vehicles, yet most do not include.

[Walter Brewer]

Another reason for ground level stations.

 

 Walt Brewer

 

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

From: Jay Andress

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 10:56 AM

Subject: [t-i] Re: Real Estate Developers

[van...@comcast.net]

Jay:

 

I, too, have never heard about any government grant, let alone one of $50 million, and I followed the development very closely at the time.  I live in the Chicago area.

[Jack Slade]

I first heard of the project while waiting for an engine to be repaired in New Hampshire, so I can peg the date as 1996. It was on tv, with a computerized clip showing how it would operate, and if certainly did mention a 5$50 million grant.

The guideway got bigger because Raytheon owned a plant that produced 4 ft.diameter pipe, and sales were slow, and also because they had a group of electronic engineers that were not really busy.

Two rules here: Dont just use something because it is available, and don't get electronic engineers to redesign anything except electronics.  Would you ask a plumber to rewire your house?

 

Jack S.

Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jay Andress]

 

   Hate to say it but your facts get worse with each posting....please provide better sources than "I saw a clip on TV".

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:11 PM, Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> wrote:

I first heard of the project while waiting for an engine to be repaired in New Hampshire, so I can peg the date as 1996. It was on tv, with a computerized clip showing how it would operate, and if certainly did mention a 5$50 million grant.

The guideway got bigger because Raytheon owned a plant that produced 4 ft.diameter pipe, and sales were slow, and also because they had a group of electronic engineers that were not really busy.

Two rules here: Dont just use something because it is available, and don't get electronic engineers to redesign anything except electronics.  Would you ask a plumber to rewire your house?

 

Jack S.

info: andre...@gmail.com

[Jack Slade]

Suggest you contact Ed Anderson. I am sure he will be able to provide you with more details. What I have posted is also recollections of discussions that took place on this list long ago.  He was not part of the project. Raytheon just bargained for his system, and then ignored most of his ideas and had their engineers bastardize it into a monstrosity that cities considered too expensive. If I am wrong, it is because I am repeating  postings from long ago. My memory is not perfect, but it is pretty damn good.

The same thing happened with the building of the Morgantown system. The original designer was never consulted after NASA took over. After all,  they were smarter than him, were they not?

The history of what these two companies did to PRT should be engraved on a plaque somewhere, as a process that should NEVER be repeated.

 

Jack S.

Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:47 AM 2/16/2008, you wrote:
>Suggest you contact Ed Anderson. I am sure he will be able to
>provide you with more details.

Here are some details about the Chicago RTA-Raytheon process from Ed Anderson:

May1989: Dick Daly, Marketing Mgr of the Raytheon Equipment Division
and I have lunch with Gayle Franzen, Chairman of the Chicago Area
RTA. He immediately starts working on a PRT program. It turned out
that Tom Floyd, then ATRA Chairman, and the RTA ExDir were old
friends and they met together with Gayle in Washington where Tom
explained the politics of PRT and also gave Gayle the 1988 ATRA PRT Report.

Late August 1989: The RTA Chair, the CTA Chair and Tom Riley, who
introduced us to them, visited Raytheon ready to invest $8m if
Raytheon would do the same. They were surprised that Raytheon did not accept.

October 1988: The RTA decides to prepare an RFP rather than just
giving Raytheon a contract. They select a Technical Support
contractor team headed by Carlos DeMoraes, who had been my boss at
the Colorado RTD in 1974-5. Bill Wilde was part of Carlos's team,
hence I have copied him.

January 1990: The Sr VP and GM of the equipment Division, Walter
Stowell, assigns 20 engineers to work with me in preparation of our proposal.

April 1990: the RTA releases the RFP. I have the document.

Two days later the newly anointed Raytheon President, Dennis Picard,
decides not to prime the project.
George Billman, then with Stone & Webster, and whom I got to know in
the Denver RTD program in 1974-5, has followed our work and begins
working on the S&W President to prime the project.

June 1990. The S&W Pres agrees and we begin meeting with S&W management

July 1990: Ira Smith, former Raytheon engineer and I spend two weeks
in Denver working on the proposal because Billman then worked out of
the S&W Denver office.

August 1990: we submit our proposal and go to Chicago to give a
presentation and answer questions.

Sept 1990 We are picked as one of the two contractors for $1.5m PRT
Design Studies. Intamin got the other.

April 1991: After months of negotiation our contract work starts.

April 1992: Our work on the project finishes and we submit our final
report. The problem then was that we had to come up with $20m to
match the RTA for the Phase II test program. Mainly led by Dick
Daly, we search several possibilities, but by September we have just
about run out of possibilities

Late Sept 1992; Dennis Picard, now chairman and CEO of Raytheon,
because of declining military orders, decides to enter the PRT
business. I get invited to visit with the Raytheon Corporate
Marketing VP. They want to work with us which we do beginning in October.

January 1993: Raytheon CEO formerly decides to invest the $20m and
they get working formally on their proposal.

June 1993: Raytheon presents its proposal to the RTA and get
selected for Phase II

October 1, 1993: work starts on Phase II

August 1994: The Raytheon PRT Project Managers decide to proceed
with the guideway design based on a 3 ft diam pipe.
I think it was in 1997 that Raytheon dropped their PRT work after the
RTA failed to proceed with phase III, which was the Rosemont, IL, 3
mi, 8 station system.
--------------------------------------
There is some additional detail at
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm > look for
Raytheon's PRT 2000 item.
If there was an Federal money involved, I would guess it might have
been a grant to the Chicago RTA to help pay for their share of the
project. But, I have no information to suggest that any Federal money
was involved.

Another good source is the New Scientist magazine article:
<http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119153.600-high-hopes-for-faster-transit--city-planners-are-desperateto-unclog-congested-roads-by-luring-us-out-of-our-cars-and-on-to-publictransport-enter-the-personal-train-that-could-be-running-in-chicago-bythe-year-2000-.html>http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14119153.600-high-hopes-for-faster-transit--city-planners-are-desperateto-unclog-congested-roads-by-luring-us-out-of-our-cars-and-on-to-publictransport-enter-the-personal-train-that-could-be-running-in-chicago-bythe-year-2000-.html

It says RTA = $18 million, Raytheon = $20 million.
Puts some dates on the development and Taxi-Raytheon relationship.
Same old Vukan criticisms!

[Jack Slade]

That is cartainly more information than I had before, and also a little different. It is not the first time that the Media got something wrong.

 

Jack Slade

Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

[Michael Weidler]

How about in terms of TRAFFIC MITIGATION.