A Bold New Vision (for Ottawa-Gatineau)

Franky · #1 Posted **Apr 15, 2008, 6:02 PM**

Imagine linking the neighbourhoods of cities in the Windsor to Québec city corridor with a seamless, high speed public transit solution. One that will take us from neighbourhood to neighbourhood in possibly different cities without having to transfer. One that is emissions free, safe, fast, climate controlled, comfortable, cost effective and available 24/7.

Impossible? Not in the least. Personal Automated Transit is the solution. Here's a link to a more detailed proposal: http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...hxh_23d8697pd4

This thread is meant to focus on the Ottawa-Gatineau aspect of the proposal. In fact, I need help with the Gatineau part - it doesn't exist yet.

What do you think?

Rathgrith · #2 Posted **May 10, 2008, 5:31 PM**

Franky · #3 Posted **May 10, 2008, 5:58 PM**

What are you, 10 years old?

Aylmer · #4 Posted **May 12, 2008, 4:34 PM**

We all are!

Rathgrith · #5 Posted **May 12, 2008, 5:36 PM**

I'm old enough to know that PAT is just; a tunnel vision, a waste of money, needless infrastructure, and fails to grasp the rational needs for transit that Ottawa is facing right now.

Franky · #6 Posted **May 12, 2008, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rathgrith

I'm old enough to know that PAT is just; a tunnel vision, a waste of money, needless infrastructure, and fails to grasp the rational needs for transit that Ottawa is facing right now.

Why would anybody want to go from any station to any station without stops or transfers or waits?

Why would anyone want to be guaranteed a seat in a quiet climate-controlled vehicle?

Why would anyone want more trips to be free of emissions?

...

Jamaican-Phoenix · #7 Posted **May 12, 2008, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franky

Why would anybody want to go from any station to any station without stops or transfers or waits?

Why would anyone want to be guaranteed a seat in a quiet climate-controlled vehicle?

Why would anyone want more trips to be free of emissions?

...

Because for most people, they know that that is impossible in today's world and the costs of implementing such an unproven system would be astronomical. Not to mention the fact that in order to implement such a system, there would need to be major shutdowns of roads and transit. No one is gonna dare take away the public's roads and transit.

Franky · #8 Posted **May 12, 2008, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Because for most people, they know that that is impossible in today's world and the costs of implementing such an unproven system would be astronomical. Not to mention the fact that in order to implement such a system, there would need to be major shutdowns of roads and transit. No one is gonna dare take away the public's roads and transit.

It's not impossible, it's automotive technology. Everything that is needed exists. The R&D cost gets spread over the whole implementation area which is about 17 million people.

"Shutdown of roads" would be no worse than for other transit systems like light rail.

It doesn't take away the public's roads any more than LRT would, in fact probably less.

Justin10000 · #9 Posted **May 12, 2008, 6:27 PM**

Franky · #10 Posted **May 12, 2008, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justin10000

http://www.roadkillbill.com/PRT-Pulse.jpg

This proposal doesn't include elevated tracks at all.

MalcolmTucker · #11 Posted **May 12, 2008, 7:13 PM**

You know franky, having robotic taxis in significant number has the same result as this system.

With the advancement in robotic cars in the past decade, I think it would be much more likely to come to fruition, especially since it requires very little upgrade of our capital stock.

If PRT was possible, or economic it would have been done, over the past 40 years.

When you look at all the iterations that were tried over the past century for mass transit system design, there must be a reason PRT has never come to pass. And that reason isn't a huge oil company conspiracy! Or an entrenched manufacturer conspiracy. If one of these huge companies (Bombardier, Siemens or even Skoda) saw that this technology was even close to economical, or feasible, it would have been done!

m0nkyman · #12 Posted **May 12, 2008, 7:20 PM**

It's not going to happen because it is neither fish nor fowl. Right now we have personal transportation (cars) and mass transportation (buses/rail). PRT or whatever you want to call it, isn't door to door like cars, and it isn't cheap like mass transportation. It's a lovely idea that isn't going to happen. Much like the high speed rail between Edmonton and Calgary that I mock mercilessly as well.

Franky · #13 Posted **May 12, 2008, 7:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

You know franky, having robotic taxis in significant number has the same result as this system.

"robotic taxis" would be better but they are 20+ years away. This can be built now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

With the advancement in robotic cars in the past decade, I think it would be much more likely to come to fruition, especially since it requires very little upgrade of our capital stock.

You would think so, but no. Driving is a difficult task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kyle_olsen

If PRT was possible, or economic it would have been done, over the past 40 years.

When you look at all the iterations that were tried over the past century for mass transit system design, there must be a reason PRT has never come to pass. And that reason isn't a huge oil company conspiracy! Or an entrenched manufacturer conspiracy. If one of these huge companies (Bombardier, Siemens or even Skoda) saw that this technology was even close to economical, or feasible, it would have been done!

This proposal addresses the shortcomings of PRT. It's not (by the strict definition) PRT at all, it's a cross between PRT and Dual-Mode, so I placed it under the broader heading of Personal Automated Transit.

First PRT shortcoming fixed - capacity.
Not enough vehicles/people can travel along a right of way per hour. This is fixed by having virtually coupled vehicles (platoons) and making the vehicles small enough so that 4 can fix in the space of 1 vehicle lane resulting in a ROW capacity on par with LRT - 15,000 pphpd.

Second PRT shortcoming fixed - elevated guideways.
Many people don't like having vehicles zipping over their heads. This may be an irrational objection, but it makes the concept of monorails and PRT difficult to accept. The proposed PAT system is designed to run at grade on a limited access ROW with shallow cut-and-cover tunnels where obstructions require it.

Third PRT shortcoming fixed - no private vehicles.
Some people will pay quite a bit of money to ride in a vehicle customized to their particular needs. Trying to fight these needs or wants and imposing a single system will surely result in lower ridership. This PAT system allows private small electric vehicles riding on bogies to use the guideway.

This proposal is NOT PRT, it's better.

Franky · #14 Posted **May 12, 2008, 7:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by m0nkyman

It's not going to happen because it is neither fish nor fowl. Right now we have personal transportation (cars) and mass transportation (buses/rail). PRT or whatever you want to call it, isn't door to door like cars, and it isn't cheap like mass transportation. It's a lovely idea that isn't going to happen. Much like the high speed rail between Edmonton and Calgary that I mock mercilessly as well.

Possibly. Or it's fish and fowl and will find a niche between GHG producing cars and much avoided Public Transit.

Aylmer · #15 Posted **May 12, 2008, 11:15 PM**

Not to offend, but this whole PTR debate is STALE.
How about ULR?

(it comes with stonehenge!) Spellsies!