Morgantown PRT gets a partial ($19 m) tune-up

[Jerry Schneider]

http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=103999&catid=3

[Jack Slade]

If anybody thinks that is a lot of money, it works out to half a million per year spread out over the life of the system. If it had been a bus route the busses would have been replaced twice, in that time span, and would have cost more.

Jack Slade

--- On Mon, 7/25/11, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

> From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
> Subject: [t-i] Morgantown PRT gets a partial ($19 m) tune-up
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, July 25, 2011, 11:54 PM
> http://www.cbs59.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=103999&catid=3
>
>
> -- 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.
>
>

[Roy Reynolds]

It does seem a very economical approach.  And it was especially encouraging they received some federal money considering the crap the FTA can invest in. 

You'd almost think, after the upgrade, that this system might be the model for another somewhere else -- and that some vendor might step in, buy the design and re-sell it.

Roy

[kirston henderson]

on 7/26/11 1:29 PM, Roy Reynolds at roy.re...@prtstrategies.com wrote:

It does seem a very economical approach.  And it was especially encouraging they received some federal money considering the crap the FTA can invest in.  

You'd almost think, after the upgrade, that this system might be the model for another somewhere else -- and that some vendor might step in, buy the design and re-sell it.

   At the price that a customer would have to pay, who would ever buy one?

[Jack Slade]

Just take the original plans for Morgantown, and build it.  It would be 1/4 the present size, have smaller and more vehicles,  stations that are just covered platforms instead of expensive buildings,  support pilings that are not huge 80ft tall structures, ....in other words,  do not make all the mistakes that were made by the "Committee" that was sure it was smarter than the original designer. Have you seen this system at Morgantown?  It is like a road....smaller, but nevertheless a road, and 2-way at that.  A 2-way PRT would provide double service to one street and a larger walking distance for those who do not live on that street.  Waste of money.   Jack Slade --- On Tue, 7/26/11, kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

From: kirston henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] Morgantown PRT gets a partial ($19 m) tune-up To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Jerry Schneider]

Are not airports buying pretty similar APM systems and have been for
some time? I think Bombardier could
re-design and build a system like that at Morgantown, if they think
they could sell them.

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

[Robbert Lohmann]

Once I get the time, I'll make an effort to set up a calculation of
what it would cost to replace the whole system with ours
(ParkShuttle). Somehow I have a distinct feeling the the 19 million
for the upgrade, would have gone a long way...

On 27 jul, 02:15, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> At 02:53 PM 7/26/2011, you wrote:
>

[Dennis Manning]

Robbert:

Totally new? Would you use any part of the current system? Hope you can find
the time for the calculation. I'd be very interested.

Dennis

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Robbert Lohmann" <rob...@2getthere.eu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 12:14 AM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: Morgantown PRT gets a partial ($19 m) tune-up

[Roy Reynolds]

Any plan must reuse the existing infrastructure for obvious reasons -- it's too expensive to replace and it's already heated for ice/snow removal.  As I recall, one of the original unforeseen issues of the original implementation was the severity of the local climate. 

It's also important to ADD VALUE, e.g. expanding the system where it logically needs to go -- that campus, and the town, must have grown considerably since the '70s.

RR

[Jack Slade]

Keeping existing infrastructure may look desirable,  but may not be practical. I have read that the energy cost for melting snow is more than the cost for running the vehicles.  This should be avoided in the energy-hungry future that we face.   My guideway would be 3 ft wide....why would I need a 15 ft. wide concrete road underneath it?  Some other systems might be able to use existing track,  some others can't.   Jack Slade  --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Roy Reynolds <roy.re...@prtstrategies.com> wrote:

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:21 PM 7/27/2011, you wrote:
>Any plan must reuse the existing infrastructure for obvious reasons
>-- it's too expensive to replace and it's already heated for
>ice/snow removal. As I recall, one of the original unforeseen
>issues of the original implementation was the severity of the local climate.

I'm puzzled - they included heating the guideway in the initial
design because they knew it would be a problem, didn't they?

>It's also important to ADD VALUE, e.g. expanding the system where it
>logically needs to go -- that campus, and the town, must have grown
>considerably since the '70s.

If there was money available, perhaps they could rehab part of the
system and add value with a new technology to make the whole system
more useful. So far as I can tell, at this time, the 6-year
reauthorization of the House transport bill will be pretty tight with
funds, unless the Senate manages to add some funding to it (not likely).

Would some private company invest in an extension - like Henderson or
Bombardier? I hope someone asks them about it but the profit
potential may not be so great in that market - unless the capital and
operating costs were really low and fares were significant - or
subsidies were found.

[Roy Reynolds]

I'm remembering that it was not anticipated the guideway would need to
be heated, but as I'm entitled to senior moments, I could be wrong.

[Jack Slade]

I am a senior also,  but I did read that the snow problem was not considered in the initial project and had to be added later....probably by Boeing,  when they were asked take over and make the system operational. I have the e-mail contact for the engineer at Morgantown who is ( or at least was) in charge of it a couple of years ago.  He might be on holidays at this time of year,  but I will try to get his comments.

Jack Slade --- On Wed, 7/27/11, Roy Reynolds <roy.re...@prtstrategies.com> wrote:

From: Roy Reynolds <roy.re...@prtstrategies.com> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Morgantown PRT gets a partial ($19 m) tune-up To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

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

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

[Dennis Manning]

My recollection is more like Roy's. The heating system was not in the
original design and was hastily designed at a later point.

Dennis

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Roy Reynolds" <roy.re...@prtstrategies.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:12 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Morgantown PRT gets a partial ($19 m) tune-up

[Jerry Schneider]

At 02:48 PM 7/27/2011, you wrote:
>My recollection is more like Roy's. The heating system was not in
>the original design and was hastily designed at a later point.

OK - I'll ask Ed Anderson, for his recollection. You are probably correct.

[Roy Reynolds]

To be cynical about it and knowing the company fairly well as they're
all that's left of aerospace here, Boeing would NEVER have passed on the
opportunity to install a steam-driven heating system for eight+ miles of
concrete infrastructure.

Living in southern California, I'm still steamed about their complete
failure at building the high-tech border fence. We taxpayers lost six
or seven figures on that, and as far as I know we taxpayers never saw a
refund from Boeing.

RR

[Roy Reynolds]

Correction: $30 BILLION per
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/boeing-virtual-fence-30-billion-failure/362.

[Richard Gronning]

So, what IS Bill James up to these days?
http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=104215

[kirston henderson]

on 7/27/11 3:53 PM, Jerry Schneider at j...@peak.org wrote:

> If there was money available, perhaps they could rehab part of the
> system and add value with a new technology to make the whole system
> more useful. So far as I can tell, at this time, the 6-year
> reauthorization of the House transport bill will be pretty tight with
> funds, unless the Senate manages to add some funding to it (not likely).
>
> Would some private company invest in an extension - like Henderson or
> Bombardier? I hope someone asks them about it but the profit
> potential may not be so great in that market - unless the capital and
> operating costs were really low and fares were significant - or
> subsidies were found.
>

We have looked at this problem with the idea of using the structure of
the current guideway system as a basis to support a special version of our
MicroWay guideway and then extending the system using our normal elevated
guideway. In this plan, we should not need the current heating system.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems