News from MagneMotion about their ODU Urban Maglev project

[Jerry Schneider]

Can anyone visit the site at Old Dominion U and report on their experience?
-------------------------------------------------------

>Our recent FTA grant of 7.9 M for M3 allowed us to produce 150 meters of
>track and two vehicles- our vehicle at ODU is now working on an elevated
>guideway (the same guideway on which American Maglev failed) and we
>expect to carry passengers in the future, albeit for only a short trip.
>I encourage you to visit ODU and see this in operation to see that it is
>relatively simple design, has twice the air gap of Transrapid, requires
>very little power for suspension, and requires no extra rails for
>guidance. The M3 concept is proven, but needs further development for
>switches, curves, and testing at operating speeds.
>
>We started with a working prototype and have established manufacturing
>capabilities. We know precisely what this design costs, and it is very
>competitive with any alternative: rail, monorail, etc. Our operating
>cost, noise, predicted reliability, etc. make it an ideal system. We
>also believe our LSM can propel rail vehicles and that "wireless" rail
>technology is the best choice for some cases where existing rail lines
>exist. LSM rail is also viable for hauling heavy containers etc.

[Larry Blow]

Turns out I'm planning to visit as soon as the team can resolve some liability issues related to carrying passengers on the test equipment.  From Arlington, VA, I'm only about 200 miles away from the Old Dominion campus in Norfolk.

Larry Blow

MaglevTransport, Inc.

[Eric Johnson]

It's nice to hear things are still moving forward as their website has no updates for last 2-3 years. I think it would be interesting to see their thoughts on suspended vs supported designs. Do you know of any other support designs outside of SkyTran PRT in the Silicon Valley?

Eric

[Dennis Manning]

SkyTran is a suspended system. Another supported maglev system is Applied Levitation. Magplane?

 

Dennis

--
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/-/Qtp9SPemgqwJ.
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.

[Eric Johnson]

FYI. Their website hasn't been updated for a couple of years.   http://eng.odu.edu/maglev/index.shtml 

Eric

[Eric Johnson]

Oops.  I meant to say suspended systems like Skytran.  Eric

[eph]

Skytran uses magnetic repulsion, maybe that's the question?

I have to say, I'm pretty excited about Magnemotion's advances, there is potential there for some interesting designs.


F.

[Eric Johnson]

My layman's understanding is that Skytran is a maglev solution vs others that use wheeled bogies of some kind. My main concern is what are the build & operating costs over other designs. We get those numbers down & profitability goes up and private investors become much more interested in getting involved.

This rolls over into keeping the pods small (4 pax) & simple, inline stations streamlined, etc.

Why private capital or investors? Simply because the US & other countries are broke and I just don't see any level of government being able to pursue this on their own. They can encourage it with some seed money and waiving taxes (construction taxes, operating taxes, etc). I just don't see them able to spend $200+ Million to open up a new PRT starter system.

Eric

[Jerry Schneider]

At 07:33 AM 6/8/2012, you wrote:
>It's nice to hear things are still moving forward as their website
>has no updates for last 2-3 years. I think it would be interesting
>to see their thoughts on suspended vs supported designs. Do you know
>of any other support designs outside of SkyTran PRT in the Silicon Valley?

There are several - see: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/maglevq.htm


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

[eph]

In "The Future of Maglev (171 KB pdf)" and http://web.archive.org/web/20090124133020/http://www.magnemotion.com/products/maglev/pdf/APM07PRT.pdf there is a (likely outdated) cost breakdown for small vehicle PRT using magnemotion systems

http://www.magnemotion.com/transportation-systems/Download_Whitepapers.cfm


F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:30 AM 6/8/2012, you wrote:
>My layman's understanding is that Skytran is a maglev solution vs
>others that use wheeled bogies of some kind. My main concern is what
>are the build & operating costs over other designs. We get those
>numbers down & profitability goes up and private investors become
>much more interested in getting involved.
>
>This rolls over into keeping the pods small (4 pax) & simple, inline
>stations streamlined, etc.
>
>Why private capital or investors? Simply because the US & other
>countries are broke and I just don't see any level of government
>being able to pursue this on their own. They can encourage it with
>some seed money and waiving taxes (construction taxes, operating
>taxes, etc). I just don't see them able to spend $200+ Million to
>open up a new PRT starter system.

First, a demonstration system needs to be built in the US. The
proposed demo at Rosemont, Ill., by Raytheon and the Chicago RTA,
(1997) is a good example of what needs to be done. Some of the
financing can come from land development opportunities and from
numerous other sources. http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/roserpt.htm

The new LRT line in Portland, now under construction, is 50% federal,
50% local for the $200 m/mi LRT line. There are 9 local sources of
funding, some in-kind donations (people time and public land) and
significant hits to the affected cities and counties and the regional
government (all of which are now wondering where they are going
to get the money without cutting employees, reducing pension
benefits, borrowing at 5% and so on) to pay the local share of this
$1.5 billion project (TriMet's Orange Line). Also, we have spent $140
m on a Columbia River Crossing new bridge design that has been
rendered useless as it been "discovered" that it is not high enough
to allow some river traffic to pass under it.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 07:33 AM 6/8/2012, you wrote:

>It's nice to hear things are still moving forward as their website
>has no updates for last 2-3 years. I think it would be interesting
>to see their thoughts on suspended vs supported designs. Do you know
>of any other support designs outside of SkyTran PRT in the Silicon Valley?

MagneMotion has done a preliminary design for a suspended vehicle -
to show how switching could be done. But, so far the do not have any
plans for developing it.

[Jerry Roane]

Eric

It is all a matter of priority.  They spend that kind of money all the time.  The US pays 1.3 billion dollars a day buying gasoline so each day 4 major cities could have a network built from savings at the pump with a full solar powered installation.  There are about 30 major cities or a month of gasoline.  

( 190,625,023 drivers in the US in year 2000  each driving 15,000 miles 20 mpg 750 gallons per driver or 2.054 gallons per day $3.50 gasoline price assumed total $1,370,933,385.00 each day)

The tragedy is that we cannot get the information out about the money to be made not buying gasoline.  

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/-/h9-VuidVNdMJ.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 09:31 AM 6/8/2012, you wrote:
>Eric
>
>It is all a matter of priority. They spend that kind of money all
>the time. The US pays 1.3 billion dollars a day buying gasoline so
>each day 4 major cities could have a network built from savings at
>the pump with a full solar powered installation. There are about 30
>major cities or a month of gasoline.
>
>( 190,625,023 drivers in the US in year 2000 each driving 15,000
>miles 20 mpg 750 gallons per driver or 2.054 gallons per day $3.50
>gasoline price assumed total $1,370,933,385.00 each day)
>
>The tragedy is that we cannot get the information out about the
>money to be made not buying gasoline.

How about including the costs of making this extensive transition -
solar installations, transmission network improvements, millions of
EVs, scrapping millions of ICE autos, building a charging
infrastructure, closing lots of gas stations or remodelling them,
closing refineries, shutting down ICE auto parts suppliers and so
on? I've read that Germany now is getting 50% of its electricity from solar.

[Eric Johnson]

Jerry,

I believe in PRT and my only real issues are I think it needs to be 4 passenger in capacity, suspended for the smaller station footprints & station simplicity, and overall as simple as possible. I would leave power production to the utility companies and the guideways would not contain anything that wasn't required by the PRT system, like providing space for phone & electric cables. This helps reduce guideway size and costs which is a major cost. Smaller pods also equal smaller costs.

Yes, the US spends tons of money on gas every day. But, it's coming from many different pockets so I don't agree with that comparison. You won't get people to give you money today for a system that will open next year.

What we can do is calculate what an average driver spend per day on driving to work as it's MPG x distance + parking charges + normal wear & tear. Let's keep it simple and just say $3.50 per gallon each way for $7 round trip. If we can provide the last mile solution to work while avoiding traffic congestion I believe most commuters would be willing to walk 5-7 minutes to a PRT station or drive to one with a park n ride lot. Now, it becomes a matter of "can we build it and make money?" That is where the private funding would come in since profits drive them quicker and more efficiently than any government agency. 

Then we would all see the benefits that PRT provides.  Eric

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.

[eph]

Eric,
Why did you choose 4 passengers and not 1,2 or 3?  Just curious.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Amristar, poised to be the first revenue generating PRT installation.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/pod-cars-are-poised-to-transform-an-indian-citys-streetscape-and-skyline/


F.

[Eric Johnson]

No problem as I feel size is important and should be debated often.  Short answer I feel it's the best size to handle 99% of PRT traffic. 

Pods need to be:

- ADA compliant - Taxi2000 says for PRT that means roughly 30 x 48 inch for wheelchairs (lost my ref) plus one person

- roll on/roll off capable for baby strollers, luggage, wheel barrows (just kidding...), etc

-- Bike carrying capacity increases commuter and weekend usage

- These two needs drive a size that can comfortable seat 4 people in an Ultra style facing each other configuration

- Easier to double passenger counts through pod sharing when you have 4 seats vs 2 or 3

- Going from Skytran single seat to a double seat increases width slightly to a 1.5 m/5 ft width

-- Minor penalty for doubling pod capacity

Pod weight increases by maybe 30% for a doubling in capacity. I think that makes it a smart capacity target

Eric

[Jack Slade]

Eric,  re your item #2;   No kidding.  If somebody wants to take a wheelbarrow or some other Dolly to bring heavy items home,  why not?  Convenience is the core of PRT,  and I see many people today walking along my street with foldable 2-wheel dollies full of groceries.  I see no reason why PRT should not try to accomodate them too.  I do undertand the other argument that a 2-person car accomodates over 95% of present car users.  I would even expect,  with time,  that many systems will have both.

 

Jack Slade

From: Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 8, 2012 3:55:24 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] News from MagneMotion about their ODU Urban Maglev project

--
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/-/eUa-dBH0y3oJ.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Eric Johnson]

I would expect to see a resurgence of those 2 wheel shopping carts with a good PRT system in place with stations every 1/2 mile or 5-7 minute walk. 

FYI. You do understand I was joking around when I tossed the wheelbarrow in there, right?  Humor is needed from time to time.

Cheers, Eric

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.

[eph]

Eric,
I think Taxi2000 is 3 abreast.
4' wide is still OK for wheelchair, I think Skytran is wheelchair accessible.
4'x5' vs 5'x6' (for example) is 20 vs 30 sqft or 50% more surface area, 50% more wind drag, larger tunnels (which may or may not be a factor).
Less material/cost to build.
90+ % of commuter traffic is 1 passenger
weight is probably not much of a factor, though it affects acceleration and power needs.

As for bikes and wheelbarows, why not put the possibly dirty wheels in a separate freight pod and claim it at your destination?  If platooning is allowed, the pod would follow or lead you all the way.

I'm still on the fence on this one.
F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:55 PM 6/8/2012, you wrote:
>No problem as I feel size is important and should be debated
>often. Short answer I feel it's the best size to handle 99% of PRT traffic.

"Feeling" may not be good enough to satisfy the requirements of a
rigorous assessment of the preferences of consumers, many with
numerous choices and constraints. There has been an exhaustive study
of the Amritsar project and they have chosen a 6 passenger vehicle. I
believe that Vectus is working on a 6 passenger vehicle as well as
being able to link two or more 4 passenger cars for their application
in S. Korea. I expect that for each application the analysis will
have to be repeated to meet local standards and desires.

>Pods need to be:
>- ADA compliant - Taxi2000 says for PRT that means roughly 30 x 48
>inch for wheelchairs (lost my ref) plus one person
>- roll on/roll off capable for baby strollers, luggage, wheel
>barrows (just kidding...), etc
>-- Bike carrying capacity increases commuter and weekend usage
>- These two needs drive a size that can comfortable seat 4 people in
>an Ultra style facing each other configuration
>- Easier to double passenger counts through pod sharing when you
>have 4 seats vs 2 or 3
>- Going from Skytran single seat to a double seat increases width
>slightly to a 1.5 m/5 ft width
>-- Minor penalty for doubling pod capacity
>
>Pod weight increases by maybe 30% for a doubling in capacity. I
>think that makes it a smart capacity target

These are useful questions that would normally be covered in an
analysis of a proposed application.
What does making the vehicle larger do to guideway design and costs?

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

I agree completely on the items you list.  Change will scrap a lot of bad items from public view and some items will live basically forever in landfills.  Not much need for a few million gasoline pumps except as scrap recycled steel.  At $1.3 billion per day budget we do have fun money to pay for these items.  All those elite gasoline station jobs would be gone.  The need for low tech workers will continue to be a problem for society and for the low skilled worker himself.  The solar installation is the guideway and included in the one time cost.  By generating local there is less transmission of power but the take away is there is simply a lot less power total.  ICE cars scrap themselves.  That problem will solve itself.  I have a 23 year old Corvette and it needs significant renovation and if it were not considered a semi-classic I would scrap it in a heartbeat.  The running gear has been overhauled three times in this time period but most of the public will not rebuild anything or crawl under their car for any reason.  The charging infrastructure is under the guideway and is part of the price listed.  If standards are not created up front the cost of charging is very very low.  Once you get some standards dudes in there the price of charging stations is insanely expensive.  Who thought up that goofy connector just to touch copper conductors together?  In the tunnel of battery mule love you don't have to worry about people touching electrified conductors.  They can't get in the space to get shocked.  

If you observe gas stations here in Texas they scrap them all the time.  As soon as they get their third paint job they are torn down and built again on another lot.  Each time with more light pollution and larger concrete.  Someone at the oil and gas business office thinks if there is a beam of light going into deep space they will sell more fuel.  I guess it is true because they all have more and more light pollution.  The buried gasoline tanks are problematic because they rust through and have to be dug up all the time when they leak into the ground water.  There is a bond paid when you build a gasoline station that pays for the de-commissioning of a gas station when they inevitably go belly up from poor financial management.  There are two converted gas stations next to my farm one is an air-conditioning service company and the other does upholstery.  They were replaced just across the street with an all night store with gas.  That one is replaced now with a giant gasoline city on interstate 10.  A gas station with a store and two restaurants all tacky and tasteless.  Yellow back lit plastic.  I can't say I would be nostalgic about gas stations but maybe.  The point is to put OPEC out of control of the United States of America's business.  That will end a few extra high paid careers.  That is a good thing! 

The idea is to smoothly transition from welding cars with robots to molding cars with robots.  The plan is to use the big car guys to build the millions of EVs but they will come kicking and screaming for sure.  It will be quite a shakeup to go from the business model of the steel car to the computer business model of EVs.  That will shock the big boys as the price of the car goes commodity from luxury.  In some business schools they tell students that once a product goes commodity get out.  I contend that in the age of Internet information flow everything will go commodity.  Like it or not and the key is to make money on products when they get to commodity levels.  

Jerry Roane

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

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

[Eric Johnson]

Jerry,

I would expect & demand rigorous and honest evaluations of PRT, proper size & function, initial routes, etc. I was saying what I felt was the best design criteria based on the info & the known requirements/wants I have today.  These design choices do add weight over the Taxi2000 3 pax version by maybe 200 pounds so it'll add some to the guideline size/weight. 

Amritsar is a good example of a very local high demand requirement of 50,000+ passengers per day. Thus a 6 pax version works well otherwise they would need 50% more vehicles, as well as berths. I'm not aware of any place in the US that would have that daily demand every day. 

Eric

[Jerry Schneider]

At 04:20 PM 6/8/2012, you wrote:
>Jerry,
>
>I would expect & demand rigorous and honest evaluations of PRT,
>proper size & function, initial routes, etc. I was saying what I
>felt was the best design criteria based on the info & the known
>requirements/wants I have today. These design choices do add weight
>over the Taxi2000 3 pax version by maybe 200 pounds so it'll add
>some to the guideline size/weight.

If you want to see the paper by J. Edward Anderson on the design
considerations involved in selecting PRT vehicle size, go here and
click on Technical Papers:
http://www.prtnz.com/publications-mainmenu-37/cat_view/19-dr-j-e-anderson-publications.
It can be downloaded.
He also has written a paper on designing the PRT guideway.

>Amritsar is a good example of a very local high demand requirement
>of 50,000+ passengers per day. Thus a 6 pax version works well
>otherwise they would need 50% more vehicles, as well as berths. I'm
>not aware of any place in the US that would have that daily demand every day.

Probably so, its a very concentrated O/D demand and a pretty small
network. We will see someday, how the fare structure affects demand
and vehicle occupancy (how much ridesharing) , after some trial and
error. As I recall, their design is aimed at carrying 100,000
passengers per day, over a considerable number of hours.

>--
>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/-/RY-LOU9EFWkJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/RY-LOU9EFWkJ.
>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.

[George Schrader DBA American Tree Services]

US annually spends 80 billion maintaining 40.000 mi highways which incurs 1.1 trillion annually in just the two instances of accidents 300b and energy 800b.
An unavoidable cost that is growing.
Lots of room here for improvement.

Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Eric
>
>It is all a matter of priority. They spend that kind of money all the
>time. The US pays 1.3 billion dollars a day buying gasoline so each day 4
>major cities could have a network built from savings at the pump with a
>full solar powered installation. There are about 30 major cities or a
>month of gasoline.
>
>( 190,625,023 drivers in the US in year 2000 each driving 15,000 miles 20
>mpg 750 gallons per driver or 2.054 gallons per day $3.50 gasoline price
>assumed total $1,370,933,385.00 each day)
>
>The tragedy is that we cannot get the information out about the money to be

>made *not buying gasoline*.
>
>Jerry Roane
>

>On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My layman's understanding is that Skytran is a maglev solution vs others
>> that use wheeled bogies of some kind. My main concern is what are the build
>> & operating costs over other designs. We get those numbers down &
>> profitability goes up and private investors become much more interested in
>> getting involved.
>>
>> This rolls over into keeping the pods small (4 pax) & simple, inline
>> stations streamlined, etc.
>>
>> Why private capital or investors? Simply because the US & other countries
>> are broke and I just don't see any level of government being able to pursue
>> this on their own. They can encourage it with some seed money and waiving
>> taxes (construction taxes, operating taxes, etc). I just don't see them
>> able to spend $200+ Million to open up a new PRT starter system.

>> Eric
>>
>>

>> On Friday, June 8, 2012 8:09:17 AM UTC-7, eph wrote:
>>>
>>> Skytran uses magnetic repulsion, maybe that's the question?
>>>
>>> I have to say, I'm pretty excited about Magnemotion's advances, there is
>>> potential there for some interesting designs.
>>>
>>>
>>> F.
>>>
>>> On Friday, June 8, 2012 10:43:15 AM UTC-4, Dennis Manning wrote:
>>>>

>>>> SkyTran is a* suspended* system. Another supported maglev system is
>>>> Applied Levitation. Magplane?
>>>>
>>>> Dennis
>>>>

>>>> --
>> 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/-/h9-VuidVNdMJ.

>>
>> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>>
>

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

[Kirston Henderson]

On Jun 9, 2012, at 12:45 PM, George Schrader DBA American Tree

Services wrote:

>
> US annually spends 80 billion maintaining 40.000 mi highways which
> incurs 1.1 trillion annually in just the two instances of accidents
> 300b and energy 800b.
> An unavoidable cost that is growing.
> Lots of room here for improvement.

One of the best way to drastically reduce that maintenance cost would
be to get those monster trucks off of the road that cause about 99% of
the highway damage. Furthermore, we have an easy way to dot it.

Kirston Henderson

[Michael Weidler]

Why not put a bike rack on the pod? The bike could straddle the door. --- On Fri, 6/8/12, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

-- 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/-/BlFISJT8ucEJ.

[Eric Johnson]

Michael,

PRT is going to have fairly tight tolerances of under 6 inches and a bike would likely stick out and hit another pod, a vertical support, etc. Plus add in liability issues and I just don't see where the insurance would allow it too.

Having just enough space for a full sized bike inside the pod makes it usable & convenient for wheel chairs, baby strollers, luggage, etc.  

It's something that will be debated on every PRT design I'm sure.

Eric

[Kirston Henderson]

See the following photo from the MegaRail web site:

http://www.megarail.com/content/inline-images/photo-gallery/McR-Car_Bike-Ent.jpg

I believe that the car shown is a PRT. It is a MicroWay™ PRT car
that we may evolve to with systems after the basic lines are built to
carry trains and GRT vehicles.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail Transportation Systems, Inc.

[Jack Slade]

Certainly the right idea for whare to carry the bike.  Anybody who wants to strap it on outside is thinking of a bus,  delaying everybody else whil he straps it on.  But please,  streamline that vehicle a little,  to make it look attractive.  It will pay off.

 

Jack Slade

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2012 1:41:19 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] News from MagneMotion about their ODU Urban Maglev project

--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]

Tight tolerances where? --- On Mon, 7/2/12, Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com> 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-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Eric Johnson]

Michael,

Most adult bikes are 5-6 feet long and if hung on the front of a pod they would stick out up to 6 inches on each side. There is a good chance the system would be designed to have less than 6 inch clearance from vertical supports, neighboring buildings, etc. Thus the chances of a bike on the front hitting something along the way.

You also have the issue of getting to the front of the pod to hang the bike which isn't possible for various reasons (supported guideway design,  passenger gates blocking access, etc).

You substantially reduce the headaches by slightly increasing pod interior space to hold 2 bikes and their riders.

Eric

[Jack Slade]

Eric:  You are still thinking BUS.  There is no way anybody is going to (A)  waste leading time performing such an action,  or (B)  be allowed to strap anything,  front or top,  to anything I get to build.

 

If it doesn't fit inside,  use a truck.

 

Jack Slade

From: Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 5:20:02 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] News from MagneMotion about their ODU Urban Maglev project

Michael,

Most adult bikes are 5-6 feet long and if hung on the front of a pod they would stick out up to 6 inches on each side. There is a good chance the system would be designed to have less than 6 inch clearance from vertical supports, neighboring buildings, etc. Thus the chances of a bike on the front hitting something along the way.

You also have the issue of getting to the front of the pod to hang the bike which isn't possible for various reasons (supported guideway design,  passenger gates blocking access, etc).

You substantially reduce the headaches by slightly increasing pod interior space to hold 2 bikes and their riders.

Eric

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:25:17 AM UTC-7, Michael wrote:

Tight tolerances where? --- On Mon, 7/2/12, Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com> wrote: From: Eric Johnson <itse...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] News from MagneMotion about their ODU Urban Maglev project To: mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, July 2, 2012, 9:28 PM Michael, PRT is going to have fairly tight tolerances of under 6 inches and a bike would likely stick out and hit another pod, a vertical support, etc. Plus add in liability issues and I just don't see where the insurance would allow it too. Having just enough space for a full sized bike inside the pod makes it usable & convenient for wheel chairs, baby strollers, luggage, etc.   It's something that will be debated on every PRT design I'm sure. Eric

-- 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/-/zjfibxsBnzQJ.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.

[Eric Johnson]

Jack,

I was answering Michael's question about putting a bike on the outside. I would go with a slightly bigger pod too that could handle 2 bikes, a wheelchair, luggage, etc. A pod able to hold 4 adults also allows increased passenger flow by using pod sharing concepts thus getting us into the 4000-8000+ riders per hour per line with a 2 second follow.

Eric

[Richard Gronning]

Taxi 2000/Skyweb Express vehicles were designed from the get-go to hold both a wheel chair or a couple of bicycles. I have pictures of the tests.
Dick

On 7/16/2012 4:47 PM, Eric Johnson wrote: