Results 1 to 74 of 74

Thread: New Personal Rapid Transit System

  1. #1

    Default New Personal Rapid Transit System

    New Vectus personal rapid transit system designed by Pininfarina can handle 8,100 passengers per hour/per direction in Suncheon Korea. Currently with 20 vehicles, the system handles 1,300 passengers per hour/per direction when 20 more vehicles are added next month. If the system is successful, the City may expand the route into the city of Suncheon.


    Suncheon Significance
    On August 15, 2013 the Suncheon personal rapid transit (PRT) system opened to limited public use with 20 vehicles. We understand that another 20 will be added in the next few months to bring the system up to its designed capability. Each vehicle holds six seated passengers with room for an additional three standees and operates at speeds up to 37 mph serving two stations 2.8 miles apart.

    Just another shuttle?
    The Vectus system only has two stations so is it just another shuttle or is there some real significance to its addition to the stable of available systems? Read on and decide for yourself.

    Destination choices
    An examination of the track layout quickly shows merges and diverges at both stations. Vehicles can clearly leave each station and travel to the other or loop around and return to the station of origin. Furthermore, at the northern station, vehicles leaving the station have the choice of four destinations:- they can loop back to the station, travel to the other station or enter the maintenance facility at one of two different entrances.

    Different features
    The Vectus system has numerous differences which potentially equip it to serve markets the other three may not be well suited to and could also make it less likely to be well equipped to serve other markets the others may better serve. Some of these differences are discussed here. The Suncheon system is captive bogey or, put another way, rail-based. This may make it better suited to high speeds (it runs at up to 37 mph – much faster than the 25 mph maximum of the other systems) but somewhat less flexible. It is noteworthy that the minimum radius used is approximately 70’ despite indications that Vectus can achieve radii as low as about 17’. The system picks up wayside power. This has the potential to give it unlimited range whereas battery-powered systems can only increase range by adding heavier batteries.The vehicle is somewhat larger and holds nine. It can attain a four-second headway, as advertised for the test track, it has a maximum theoretical capacity of 8,100 passengers per hour per direction (pphpd). This far exceeds the maximum theoretical capacities of the Heathrow and Masdar systems which are less than 3,000 pphpd. Furthermore, Vectus claims they could operate even larger vehicles on the same guideway and station infrastructure providing yet higher capacities. Unlike Heathrow and Masdar, which have station bays that are offline to each other, the Suncheon bays are inline, one behind the other. While this reduces station dwell time per vehicle, some believe it could be problematic if a leading vehicle is slow in boarding. Suncheon appears quite well positioned to answer this question.A final difference is that the Suncheon system incorporates a fare collection system, although we understand fare collection will not commence until October, 2013.

    PRT or GRT?
    With only two stations and nine-passenger vehicles (including standees) some would argue this is more of a group rapid transit (GRT) shuttle. It seems to me that it does not matter what we call it. We should look at what it is demonstrating it can do. Then we should consider what kind of capabilities such a system could reasonably be expected to achieve and what types of applications it would be best suited to serving. I can think of a few.


    Suncheon expo reaches goal of 4 million visitors
    http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...llion-visitors

    In its venue of 1.11 million square meters, the festival offers a wide range of exhibitions in four major districts -- the Arboretum Zone, the Wetland Center Zone, the World Garden Zone, and the Wetland Zone.

    The venue includes 83 types of gardens -- including 11 sites boasting exotic views -- as well as the ECOGEO Greenhouse, the Suncheon Literary Museum and the Suncheon Bay International Wetland Center.

    The event's organizer added that their goal of 4 million visitors was achieved due to their well-planned operation, as well as quality accommodation and transportation services.

    A 4.64-kilometer-long automatic railway that kicked off at the Suncheon Bay Garden Expo in August has also become a major tourist attraction, the organizer said.

    Dubbed the Personal Rapid Transit, the automatic railcar is capable of running at speeds of up to 60 kilometers per hour while carrying six to nine passengers.

    The new railway system, which operates between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., has been fully booked every day, the organizer added.

    Suncheon Ecotrans, a local railway company which built PRTs, said it has injected 60 billion won (US$53.5 million) in the project. At 4.6 km of elevated bidirectional track c/w stations, cost is about <$12M/km



    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 18-10-2013 at 05:46 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #2

    Default

    Ooohhh, look at those slender pylons and guideway. You'd almost not even know it was there.

  3. #3
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,312

    Default

    Look at the markets where it's tested - East Asian countries, where population is far more concentrated. Might be OK for areas like the airport. Otherwise, it's redundant for downtown.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  4. #4

    Default

    Still cannot figure out your post. You state that Asian countries have more density but it would not be suitable for downtown Edmonton? How so? BTW, Vectus has a test track in Sweden, Ultra is running at Heathrow and the Masdar is running in the UAE.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 18-10-2013 at 10:02 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Ooohhh, look at those slender pylons and guideway. You'd almost not even know it was there.
    The guideways are brutal, looks as big as skytrain in Vancover. I don't see how its any different.

  6. #6

    Default

    It's worse than skytrain because at least the skytrain has decent passenger capacity to make the unsightly mess worthy.

    This PRT moves 1200 people an hour per direction ?

    Ohh ahhhh

  7. #7

    Default

    They are adding 20 more vehicles and capacity will double to 2,600 pph/direction. It is easy to scale the system up again to 5,200 pph by adding another 40 of the low cost vehicles. The single loop has a capacity of 8,100 pph/direction as the system can handle headways of 3 to 4 seconds. The low cost system is not a line haul system but rather a network system and cities can easily increase the number of stations and expand the network as elevated, under ground or at grade in suitable locations at a fraction of the cost of our streetcar plans with similar capacity. You also have the benefit of on demand sevice with no schedules, 24 hour per day service and a higher average speed than LRT.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  8. #8

    Default

    Good luck convincing people to have those running in front of their houses. Any pictures of the stations? (Other than that honking big one in the video).

  9. #9

    Default

    Small 2 berth station at grade


    Medium 4 berth station elevated


    Medium 4 berth elevated station under construction (Korean design)


    Large central station and garage


    See also several Vectus vehicle types and system design details
    http://www.vectusprt.com/uploads/51AF38C040D0F.pdf

    Small ULTra Station
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  10. #10

    Default

    Can't see people lining up to have any of those right in front of their houses.

  11. #11

    Default

    While i like PRT... And think no matter what it is our only option of a future travel system in cities. .. The Group Transit and the Inline stations would killthis main idea for me.. way too many causes for human error and with GRT it eliminates the best aspects of the PRT system that would make it likable for a large variety of people.

    (A GRT system is ONLY good for one route such as the LRT even then 1/4 of the time is spent unloading and loading.)

  12. #12

    Default

    Found something interesting

    A real PRT schedule

    http://assets.slate.wvu.edu/resource...1380203243.pdf

    Basically, walk up to the station between 6:30 AM – 10:15 PM and a vehicle will take you to your destination.



    Here are the instructions on how to read your ETS bus schedule.


    Hope you have the right schedule for where you are going...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #13

    Default

    so .... first off... .

    Now that we have that out of the way...

    Question....

    Are you actually comparing PRT to a bus? Just wondering...cause if you are, I'd like to begin to point out some of the other 'minor' differences you've failed to address thus far (outside of how to read a bus schedule...thats really rocket science stuff there)... I'm sure you'll know what they are already... because there is nothing new about PRT since the last few locked threads... The only thing "new" here is the word "new" in the title of the thread.
    Last edited by Medwards; 23-10-2013 at 04:44 PM.

  14. #14

    Default

    And I found a map of that PRT.



    Hope you're not going someplace more than a few blocks away from this line. Or travelling on a Sunday. Or during school breaks.

  15. #15

    Default

    Why does prt have to compete with regular transit service? It should be demonstrated how it can compliment and enhance what there is existing today and recognize that neither prt lrt streetcar or private vehicle is the be all end all transportation solution. Admit where it's strengths and weakness are and sell this as part of the solution instead of "prt rules everything else is pathetic" mantra

  16. #16

    Default

    Actually that is a planned design for Santa Cruz, CA not the UWV Campus. What your map does show is that systems can be designed with many more stops than LRT, along narrower streets, reduced radius turns, more stations and a scale-able system of loops that create a network rather than a single line-haul route.

    You are looking at the firsts steps of a new transportation system

    As in air transport:
    Yesterday


    Today
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 23-10-2013 at 07:58 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reportsyourpost View Post
    Why does prt have to compete with regular transit service? It should be demonstrated how it can compliment and enhance what there is existing today and recognize that neither prt lrt streetcar or private vehicle is the be all end all transportation solution. Admit where it's strengths and weakness are and sell this as part of the solution instead of "prt rules everything else is pathetic" mantra
    I have been. At Heathrow they are expanding the ULTra PRT system because already it as replaced 70,000 bus trips with average waiting times of only 10 seconds compared to 10 minutes for the bus transport that it replaced. It also allows service 22 hours a day with more safety and convenience. It can be used a a feeder system to LRT, it can unburden buses on congested and busy inner city routes and give transportation system designers and public transit officials a new alternative to either buses or LRT. At this lower capital cost anmd lower operating costs, it is possible for private companies to reenter the transit industry and offer a competitive alternative service.

    I am not here to even suggest replacing current LRT lines with PRT. LRT works well for line haul transit systems but it is the first mile and last mile of any journey by public transit that is the issue. Furthermore, even streetcars are becoming very expensive to build and the costs are rising at a dramatic rate that is not sustainable. Just look at the $500M shortfall in SE LRT funding. That only builds 5 km bi-directional tracks & stations along a single corridor. We were told that elevated or underground LRT alternatives were triple that cost In comparison, in Korea the Vectus system cost $53.5 million US for 4.6 km of elevated bidirectional track c/w stations or about $12M/km. With $500M you could build a network of over 40 km.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  18. #18

    Default

    You've previously advocated running PRT all over the city. You say you don't want to eliminate LRT but you're basing your argument on your belief that it's too expensive. So it's not too expensive as long as we've got PRT to go along with it?

    Remember this?

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...5&postcount=58

  19. #19

    Default

    Id like to see how one has arrived at the figures they have based on the market conditions and labour rates in alberta please. My guess is the number is made up off of napkin math and overly generalized numbers.

    No, it can't be built as cheaply as in Korea. If you can't figure out why... Well...

  20. #20

    Default



    Here is a map of a PRT network (green lines) that would be about 70 km in length and cost about equal to the WLRT single line to Lewis Estates. As you can see it covers a much larger area and would have 70 to 100 small stations that would make it more accessible and faster than commuting with buses and LRT.
    I posted that in 2008 and it is still valid.

    It is an alternative plan that would create a network with many more access points, more stations and improved transit service available 24/7 with the possibility of being built and/or operated privately. It is an opportunity to showcase to the world, the leadership in transit we demonstrated in 1978 with North America's first modern LRT system, a modern PRT system that offers a solution to the problems every city in the world is experiencing with public transit.

    If you look at the west end of Edmonton today, a full five years later, there has been no significant movement of the WLRT project. My suggested PRT plan to the West End does not eliminate a LRT line because "There is no LRT lines in the West End."

    In fact the WLRT has been put on the back burner and changed to a slower LF streetcar. There is no money in place, no construction, just a plan on paper. It is not just a belief that future LFLRT is too expensive, it is a fact. The LRT is totally constructed on tax payer supported funding and zero dollars come from user fees. Fares only pay 45% of the operating costs. Even the priority of building to the SE has an over $500M shortfall and you forget that for decades, LRT construction has been seriously delayed not only by funding issues but also been mired in political wrangling on route selection classically seen by Mandel in protecting his West End turf.


    1962 plan.



    After 50 years, this is all we have been able to afford to build.

    Today only the red line exists.


    Even after spending billions on the entire network, the West End will only have a single line to downtown with no other lines planned or even contemplated.

    Glaciers move faster than our LRT construction.


    In 1978 when LRT first started fares were 40 cents and minimum wage was ~$3.65 or a 11% ratio, current minimum wage is $9.95 and fares are $3.20 or 32%, a real change of nearly 300% in real dollars. At the same time transit fares only amount to 45% of the cost so another $3.90 is paid by the tax payer.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reportsyourpost View Post
    Id like to see how one has arrived at the figures they have based on the market conditions and labour rates in alberta please. My guess is the number is made up off of napkin math and overly generalized numbers.

    No, it can't be built as cheaply as in Korea. If you can't figure out why... Well...
    The Korean system was built privately and the costs were "Suncheon Ecotrans, a local railway company which built PRTs, said it has injected 60 billion won (US$53.5 million) in the project. At 4.6 km of elevated bidirectional track c/w stations, cost is about <$12M/km"

    Another report from London's Heathrow airport PRT designers on cost estimates



    I would think that building costs in London England are comparable to Edmonton Alberta.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  22. #22

    Default

    Ya still waiting on real math... In other threads you identify that it's "more expensive" to build lrt here than anywhere else, but somehow you feel building prt won't be exposed to the same reason it more expensive to build lrt...do tell how

    Also building on an airport doesn't really include any land cost

  23. #23

    Default

    1975 - 2013. PRT hasn't changed and nearing 40 years now, still only a handful of a test tracks ever built worldwide...

    http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/it...anComp-PRT.pdf

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reportsyourpost View Post
    Ya still waiting on real math... In other threads you identify that it's "more expensive" to build lrt here than anywhere else, but somehow you feel building prt won't be exposed to the same reason it more expensive to build lrt...do tell how

    Also building on an airport doesn't really include any land cost
    How can I give you costs to build a system in Edmonton? What is the route or service area? What is the capacity required, number of stations, soil conditions, utility locations etc. ?

    The first step would be for the City of Edmonton to put out an RFQ. That is the normal way of doing things.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    1975 - 2013. PRT hasn't changed and nearing 40 years now, still only a handful of a test tracks ever built worldwide...

    http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/it...anComp-PRT.pdf
    PRT has changed as the technolgy is now available with wireless control systems, advanced computers, packet distribution systems,m many more system designs etc. There are several test tracks, 3 operating systems and several more in planning stages with a large amount of gained knowledge and applied engineering.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  26. #26
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,528

    Default

    Out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the future of automated cars and their effect on something like PRT? To me, automated cars answer pretty much all of the questions raised by PRT, and don't require parallel infrastructure.

  27. #27
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Automated cars don't get to move freely, and will be stuck in mixed city traffic with things like normal cars, delivery vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists etc. so the no-stop trip promised by prt doesn't apply. Neither does the 4s headway, because all those level crossings mess things up.

  28. #28

    Default

    Really another PRT thread...

    my goodness.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Really another PRT thread...

    my goodness.
    that's pretty cute coming from the guy who has created ~3000 LRT threads, some times multiple threads for the same city/lrt line...

    oh wait - I broke my rule about responding to your trash... Well I guess just this last time is okay.

  30. #30

    Default

    ^ keep it classy man!
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Really another PRT thread...

    my goodness.
    Actually this is only the second thread.

    The original was started by Fell in 2006
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  32. #32

    Default

    That would make it ANOTHER prt thread...

    anyways I am going to be positive about it?

    So what development has been made PRT?
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  33. #33

    Default

    Another successful operating system from a different manufacturer with costs and a plan to expand the system into the city.

    Those are positive new developments. Who know, maybe Detroit is next?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  34. #34

    Default

    So what I see is a 4.5 KM system with two stations.....

    Doesn't sound like PRT to me. Cool it's part of Expo though...
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 24-10-2013 at 01:16 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    After 50 years, this is all we have been able to afford to build.

    Today only the red line exists.

    Take that same map, erase all routes, planned and operational, and you have a map of your urban PRT for 99.9999% of cities in the entire world. PRT has been around as a people mover system for decades. Other that your belief that there's a conspiracy among city transportation departments to prevent it's adoption, why do you think that is? Because the people who's job it is to design transportation systems don't believe it'll be as easy, cheap or efficient as you claim? Nah, must be a conspiracy.

  36. #36

    Default

    The technology is advancing rapidly now that several systems are operational. Time will tell. You negativity is duly noted.

    Rather than building a 3km, $210M extension to Gorman as shown on your map, what about a RFQ for a demonstration track from Clareview to Gorman for about $36M to feed passengers to the LRT? Maybe we could get Federal R&D Funding?

    Most of the line could be at grade along the rail ROW and only require an elevated guideway over road crossings.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-10-2013 at 03:31 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  37. #37

    Default

    why not just work to automate cars.... The infrastructure and technology is already there.

    You've already admitted that PRT isn't good for line-haul, so why are you pushing for it to replace where a line-haul system is needed?

  38. #38

    Default

    The downside of automated cars were already explained to you by highlander and you know very well that a seperate guideway has it advantages. Also are you suggesting a public transit system where everyone has access to an automated vehicle? Is that not what a PRT system is? Anyway, automated cars as you suggest are not available and are not a solution for Gorman.

    BUT automated cars ARE available right now to bring passenger from Gorman to Clareview. It is called PRT.

    Would you rather wait 20 years until the COE gets around to building LRT to Gorman (if ever) at even more cost or look at a reasonable alternative that may warrant Federal funding?

    The idea of a PRT network of loops feeding passengers to the LRT is not a linehaul system. It is a feeder system replacing buses. The only similarity is that it follows the same ROW direction that the current LRT system uses but at a much lower cost without dedicating LRT resources and it's fleet for a low volume station. Sort of like the Heathrow PRT feeding from a remote parking lot to a airport hub & spoke system

    I am glad that you are finally agreeing that the concept is similar and you are understanding the basic concepts of advanced transit technology.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-10-2013 at 05:01 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39

    Default

    Why do you need federal R&D money? You've previously said that PRT can operate without government money and even make a profit while charging $1 a ride.

    If your Gorman extension is not intended to replace LRT but buses instead, then it's not really replacing buses unless it's looping through the residential areas and for that it needs to be elevated. That means elevated stations with a platform, stairs and an elevator at each one. And what about the land for the support pylons? Who pays for the land? SHould the city just give the PRT operator the land for free or lease it for $1? Pretty sweet deal if LRT could do the the same.

    And it's not negativity, it's dealing with reality. These are questions that must be answered instead of just handwaved away.

  40. #40

    Default

    Gorman is a specific site. Each location for building a PRT system is dramatically different due to the density, traffic patterns, expected capacity, area covered, connection to residential, employment or transit nodes.

    Posters have been asking for a demonstration project and this would be one possible location. PRT systems can be built as a publicly built and operated transit system, a P3, 100% privately funded and operated system or anything in between. The PRT ROW could be leased, shared, purchased or other arrangement. Would you expect a company to buy land where the pylons are if it is City land in the median of a roadway that has questionable commercial value? Leasing land at an agreed price is more realistic. The Gorman site would not be of much interest to a private company because of the low potential ridership unless it could be set up as a demonstration project with some form of funding.

    Higher density locations such as downtown, the West End or Whyte Ave would be of more interest as a P3 or private venture and would allow for a good rate of return even with low fare rates.

    An RFQ would identify a location, a need, project parameters and the bid with the best value to the CEO would be selected.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-10-2013 at 10:53 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #41

    Default

    If Whyte Ave or the west end are more viable as a for profit PRT line, where are the proposals? Why is nobody doing it in an urban setting? Why is PRT still a people mover as we see at Heathrow or the Indian temple site or the Korean line you mentioned at the start? What's keeping it from becoming this urban, looping, profit making dynamo that you keep saying it is?

  42. #42

    Default



    That Indian city of Amritsar is a city of over one million in less than 100km2 with a density 10 times Edmonton's. A very urban location unsuitable for LRT.
    The PRT system is fully a private venture and have the approvals to build the system.


    The PRT plans are now mired in a political struggle as shop keepers who profit from the millions of visitors that clog the congested streets are fighting the proposal as they fear that they will lose business.

    Planned construction


    The technology is available, you would have to ask why our transportation department does not even consider it. Maybe it has to do with what Mandel says. “Intransigence seems to be the story of the day instead of finding ways to solve things.

    “They come to neighbourhoods and they tell people – they don't consult – they tell people what they're going to do. We hear that constantly." Mayor Mandel On Trans. Dept

    "I'm frustrated with the intransigence they have shown when they look at this thing, as are many of the people I talk to who don't feel their voices are being listened to."
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 25-10-2013 at 06:39 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  43. #43

    Default

    ^ who cares?

    Just link the two. The original poster sees a difference or wants to bring new life to the idea. Light the bridge is getting regular bumping with every new dollar contribution. That's fine with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You've previously advocated running PRT all over the city. You say you don't want to eliminate LRT but you're basing your argument on your belief that it's too expensive. So it's not too expensive as long as we've got PRT to go along with it?

    Remember this?

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...5&postcount=58
    See! As I've been saying for years: "Whatever you say or so WILL be used against you."

    Great ideas and pragmatic ideas get killed off by killing off and maiming their advocates before the concept is allowed find its utility. Ideas often come from people looking for workable solutions to existing problems. As such, their initial visions are likely flawed and need to be allowed to evolve. Such people tend not to be financial wizards and staid accountant types able to cost out to the penny their visions, but instead people not bound by conventional thinking or a strong love of the status quo.

    That said, let's dump this whole PRT concept. Only morons would suggest such a dumb idea. It's like the driverless car that Google proposed, or those self parking cars, or horseless carriages. None of them will never get past first base and no one will ever buy any of those products. Such idiots! Horse and carriage will live forever!
    Last edited by KC; 25-10-2013 at 09:31 AM.

  44. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If Whyte Ave or the west end are more viable as a for profit PRT line, where are the proposals? Why is nobody doing it in an urban setting? Why is PRT still a people mover as we see at Heathrow or the Indian temple site or the Korean line you mentioned at the start? What's keeping it from becoming this urban, looping, profit making dynamo that you keep saying it is?
    Maybe many of the same impediments to expansion of LRT impede exploring benefits from new concepts. Isn't LRT also essentially a couple hundred year old proven technology? Yet, how long did it take Edmonton to expand its current system to its current state?

    Also somewhat newer high speed rail technology doesn't really seem to exist anywhere in North America for any large scale use. Should we assume that is because it's totally unworkable and undesirable?
    Last edited by KC; 25-10-2013 at 09:44 AM.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    If Whyte Ave or the west end are more viable as a for profit PRT line, where are the proposals? Why is nobody doing it in an urban setting? Why is PRT still a people mover as we see at Heathrow or the Indian temple site or the Korean line you mentioned at the start? What's keeping it from becoming this urban, looping, profit making dynamo that you keep saying it is?
    Maybe many of the same impediments to expansion of LRT impede exploring benefits from new concepts. Isn't LRT also essentially a couple hundred year old proven technology? Yet, how long did it take Edmonton to expand its current system to its current state?

    Also somewhat newer high speed rail technology doesn't really seem to exist anywhere in North America for any large scale use. Should we assume that is because it's totally unworkable and undesirable?
    Good points KC

    We had streetcars in Edmonton and we got rid of them. Why? Maybe because some bus salesman convinced ETS to buy shiny new trolleys. We ripped up the tracks.

    Recently we were told by electric trolleys are bad because they use dirty coal and have ugly wires. Maybe because some bus salesman convinced ETS to buy shiny new hybrid buses. We tore down the trolley lines faster than you can blink.
    How did hybrids turn out?

    We were told that HST (High Speed Transit) was the solution to Edmonton's transit problems but instead are getting a slow streetcar. We are now building streetcars that run on that same coal fired electricity and use ugly wires, except this system costs $100M/km.

    I wonder who the salesman is for all this equipment and infrastructure we will spend to complete the Slow Speed Transit? That is the billion dollar question.

    If you are a salesman, what do you want to sell, this?


    or what the the little old lady needs to pick up her groceries


    Hint: The commissions on the red car are more than the white car is worth...
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 25-10-2013 at 11:31 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I hear that Mr. Harper is looking for a few sharp lads like yourself.
    Does Harper support PRT? I'm sure you've already talked to him about it, like you've talked with everyone in power about PRT... or so you've claimed on various threads...

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    ^ who cares?

    Just link the two. The original poster sees a difference or wants to bring new life to the idea. Light the bridge is getting regular bumping with every new dollar contribution. That's fine with me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You've previously advocated running PRT all over the city. You say you don't want to eliminate LRT but you're basing your argument on your belief that it's too expensive. So it's not too expensive as long as we've got PRT to go along with it?

    Remember this?

    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...5&postcount=58
    See! As I've been saying for years: "Whatever you say or so WILL be used against you."

    Great ideas and pragmatic ideas get killed off by killing off and maiming their advocates before the concept is allowed find its utility. Ideas often come from people looking for workable solutions to existing problems. As such, their initial visions are likely flawed and need to be allowed to evolve. Such people tend not to be financial wizards and staid accountant types able to cost out to the penny their visions, but instead people not bound by conventional thinking or a strong love of the status quo.

    That said, let's dump this whole PRT concept. Only morons would suggest such a dumb idea. It's like the driverless car that Google proposed, or those self parking cars, or horseless carriages. None of them will never get past first base and no one will ever buy any of those products. Such idiots! Horse and carriage will live forever!
    Yes, what you cay can be used against you. When you make an unsubstantiated claim and someone calls you on it that's not attacking you, that asking you to back up what you're saying with facts.

    PRT has a place. It's not as a city wide transportation system. It's for campuses, airports, fair/exhibition sites. Perhaps someone will come up with a system that can replace buses but until then you don't get to claim that you could cover an entire city for less than the cost of a subway/LRT line AND claim that it would make a profit AND you can do it without any sort of government expenditure.

    The Blatchford development could be used as a test bed for urban PRT. It's planned to be transit oriented. It's got defined boundaries , It's essentially wide open for development in the centre with connections possible to VIA, the LRT stations, NAIT & Kingssway Mall. Why isn't PRT putting together a group to push for this? Why isn't he calling up his contacts in ULTRA and having them make a proposal? Oh, right. There's a conspiracy keeping him from doing so.
    Last edited by kkozoriz; 25-10-2013 at 01:02 PM.

  48. #48

    Default

    We have a new Mayor who is interested in PRT. He wanted to see one and ride in it a few years ago but the Heathrow system was still under construction.

    Times have changed and now he can ride the ULTra and Vectus systems and talk to the designers.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  49. #49

    Default

    but how can we say we can ride a prt system?

    London and this new one are like 2-3 stops and are really nothing more than amusement park rides?

    personally I love the concept... but I also love the people movers in Disneyland... and was fortunate to have ridden on them before they stopped.



    Morgan town runs on a schedule during peak times because it's more efficient... I just don't see the connection to a small area people mover to something that grids a large area with multiple stops and 100's of PRV's
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  50. #50

    Default

    The automated Minirail at Expo 67 (10.7 km of track) was not a PRT but was one of many new designs in light weight monorail people movers that emerged in the 60's and 70's and moved huge crowds. One wonders why they were not developed further. I guess that there was more money to be made designing heavier mass transit systems.

    Note the name on the sign. "FORT EDMONTON"
    And no, I did not PhotoShop the image.






    Wow. look at those huge pylons!






    The Yellow Line is still operating today, some 46 years later.


    Intended originally to be operated by a concessionaire, the fair corporation decided to maintain ownership and operations and justified this decision by drawing seven million passengers on the system in just the first three months of the operation. (Think of how quickly it must have paid for itself!)
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 25-10-2013 at 02:02 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #51

    Default

    oh look, another track thats either on a campus like setting, or a test track....

    still nothing similar to what you propose for Edmonton...

    And - those pylons - what are you trying to say about them? This would be acceptable for the design you propose?

  52. #52

    Default

    7 million people in 3 months on a mini monorail??? That is nearly the same passenger count than on our LRT with a system only half as long. They had to increase fares to reduce the long lineups and to prevent people from riding all day long.

    I guess people love the system. Too bad transit planners are a little slow on grasping a concept.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  53. #53

    Default

    PRT but the current expo system that you highlighted in the opening post IS nothing more than a people mover. It's 1 line with two stations... unless I am nuts and and there are more than two stations. The map was not in English so it was a bit hard to read.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    7 million people in 3 months on a mini monorail??? That is nearly the same passenger count than on our LRT with a system only half as long. They had to increase fares to reduce the long lineups and to prevent people from riding all day long.

    I guess people love the system. Too bad transit planners are a little slow on grasping a concept.
    can't tell if you're really serious or really

  55. #55

    Default

    Here was the most popular car in East Germany and the waiting list was typically ten years long.



    But then the Trabant was the only car sold in East Germany,

    The fall of the Berlin Wall removed the Trabant's key feature - a monopoly position.

    Maybe it is time to consider more than the two options we are offered as a transit solution. More buses or more LRT.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #56

    Default

    ^ We are expanding.. BICYCLES!!!

    The cheapest and most efficient form of transportation for short trips ever created!!!

    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 25-10-2013 at 02:33 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  57. #57

    Default

    so close to godwining this thread...

    How many public PRT tracks are there in East Germany or all of Germany?

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    so close to godwining this thread...
    who made you the East German Police?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  59. #59

    Default

    I would rather build an elevated system for bicycles... we can call it BYOPRT

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    so close to godwining this thread...
    who made you the East German Police?
    I think you appointed me in the previous PRT thread

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I would rather build an elevated system for bicycles... we can call it BYOPRT

    why this? We could have better if we just tried this, and read a book... and I bet rainbows are right up your alley


  62. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    so close to godwining this thread...
    who made you the East German Police?
    I think you appointed me in the previous PRT thread
    No, I think it was your buddy, Ken Avidor
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #63

    Default

    Ahh yes, anyone who says anything against PRT must be friends with Ken Avidor...

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    why this? We could have better if we just tried this, and read a book... and I bet rainbows are right up your alley

    so negative.

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  65. #65

    Default

    ^ Amazing that 3 posters who strongly support transit and transportation ideas can argue so much.

    "Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit."

    “They come to neighbourhoods and they tell people – they don't consult – they tell people what they're going to do. We hear that constantly." Mayor Mandel On Trans. Dept

    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #66
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,481
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Can we go back to debating the system and not old closed threads?

    I closed that last one due to having to remove some 287+ posts of did not, did too.
    Ow

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I would rather build an elevated system for bicycles... we can call it BYOPRT

    Lol, sorry I know off topic, but that's actually really cool, sort of a pedway for bikes and pedestrians. If you let electric golf carts ride on it (perhaps even robo ones), it would be PRT to.
    Last edited by moahunter; 26-10-2013 at 11:34 AM.

  68. #68

    Default

    I am a big fan of moving walkways and enclosed pedestrians/bike ways. The only problem with the fanciful image above is that such structures have to be engineered for a worst case when a crowd gathers in one area of the walkway and creates a concentrated load failure. This happened in 1981 in Kansas City and 114 people died.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_R...lkway_collapse

    With the much higher engineering requirements, the greater strength and safety specifications; the costs go up dramatically.
    In reality, pedways look like this.



    I would love to see more covered walkways at grade, to allow easier walking and biking in winter away from the wind and snow.


    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 26-10-2013 at 10:41 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  69. #69

    Default

    NAIT Line
    3 Stations 3.3km of track, 13,200 weekday riders, 9 minute travel time, average speed 22 km/hr, 7 years to design and construct. Cost $755 Million.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Line

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    New Vectus personal rapid transit system designed by Pininfarina can handle 8,100 passengers per hour/per direction in Suncheon Korea. Currently with 20 vehicles, the system handles 1,300 passengers per hour/per direction when 20 more vehicles are added next month.
    A 4.64-kilometer-long automatic railway that kicked off at the Suncheon Bay Garden Expo in August has also become a major tourist attraction, the organizer said.
    Dubbed the Personal Rapid Transit, the automatic railcar is capable of running at speeds of up to 60 kilometers per hour while carrying six to nine passengers.
    The new railway system, which operates between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., has been fully booked every day, the organizer added.

    Suncheon Ecotrans, a local railway company which built PRTs, said it has injected 60 billion won (US$53.5 million) in the project. At 4.6 km of elevated bidirectional track c/w stations, cost is about <$12M/km
    If we had the foresight to look at PRT technology in this application
    Even if costs were doubled to build the NAIT line as a Vectus system, the total cost would have been ~$80M compared to $755M for this "Campus" application.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    I would rather build an elevated system for bicycles... we can call it BYOPRT

    Lol, sorry I know off topic, but that's actually really cool, sort of a pedway for bikes and pedestrians. If you let electric golf carts ride on it (perhaps even robo ones), it would be PRT to.
    It's bring your own PRT!! London is looking at it.

    And its not derailing the thread... it's PRT in its most basic form.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 28-10-2013 at 10:11 AM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    NAIT Line
    3 Stations 3.3km of track, 13,200 weekday riders, 9 minute travel time, average speed 22 km/hr, 7 years to design and construct. Cost $755 Million.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Line

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    New Vectus personal rapid transit system designed by Pininfarina can handle 8,100 passengers per hour/per direction in Suncheon Korea. Currently with 20 vehicles, the system handles 1,300 passengers per hour/per direction when 20 more vehicles are added next month.
    A 4.64-kilometer-long automatic railway that kicked off at the Suncheon Bay Garden Expo in August has also become a major tourist attraction, the organizer said.
    Dubbed the Personal Rapid Transit, the automatic railcar is capable of running at speeds of up to 60 kilometers per hour while carrying six to nine passengers.
    The new railway system, which operates between 9:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., has been fully booked every day, the organizer added.

    Suncheon Ecotrans, a local railway company which built PRTs, said it has injected 60 billion won (US$53.5 million) in the project. At 4.6 km of elevated bidirectional track c/w stations, cost is about <$12M/km
    If we had the foresight to look at PRT technology in this application
    Even if costs were doubled to build the NAIT line as a Vectus system, the total cost would have been ~$80M compared to $755M for this "Campus" application.
    Wow, quoting yourself to bolster your position.

    I'm surprised you're not suggesting we build PRT to Iceland because it'll be cheaper than airplanes.

    What have you done to promote the possibility of doing a PRT test area in Blatchford? Other than saying that the mayor has ridden on one at one time. Have to contacted Vectus and/or Ultra? Prepared a case study? Developed a business plan?

  72. #72

    Default

    PRS (Personal Rapid Submarines)
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  73. #73
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    People Movers: The Great Transportation Promise of the 1970s
    http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/peopl...909/@mattnovak

  74. #74
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,562

    Default

    I don't know, I think PRT should be explored as an option for certain areas of the city where LRT wouldn't be efficient
    LRT is our future, time to push forward.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •