metrO Proposal

[Kitchissippi]

The issue I find with the PRT system is that it focuses too much on moving vehicles rather than efficiently moving people.

A big problem would be maintenance. With private driverless cabs, people are bound to do unspeakable things. What happens if the people who use the car before you throw up or have sloppy sex in it? With mere seconds to board and exit, there is really little time to react if the condition of the vehicle is unacceptable to you.

Actually the whole PRT concept could be implemented using a wide scale car-sharing program. It would be much cheaper to have a large fleet of electric cars that you can pick up and drop at depots all over the place, much like the bike share programs in Copenhagen or Paris. A Smartcard would give you access to the cars, which would have GPS tracking that records the amount of time and distance you used it, and you get charged on a per-use basis. the cars would be cleaned and charged at the depots, which could be like the "Pez dispenser" things they use for SmartCar dealerships:

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

So you aknowledge that your "bus" mode has more capacity than your PRT solution? Then a subway has more capacity than a bus from the same concept.

Of course. Unlike for "PRT mode", you have to wait for the right vehicle, you have to stop everywhere someone needs to get off, you have to transfer, you have to share your vehicle, it doesn't have any of the qualities of automobile travel.

"Bus mode" would be used to empty stadiums or for unforeseen events, not as a regular transportation system.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

As a parking system needs to match the number of cars, it's still not effecient.

I don't understand what you mean. Oh that there has to be as much parking as there are vehicles on any system? Yes, that makes sense. The number of vehicles needed compared to the population served is just a fraction of what it would be for an automobile based system.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Usually 1m wider than the width of the train. Road tunnels need to be at least twice the me

Something got cut off here...

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Well of course you want to impose a healthy design, especially in a country with universal healthcare. This is good policy. You want to pay people to use a subway, is that what you are saying? Because to use my system, is a metro system, which actually brings people together, and offers concentration nods on it's lines to have neighborhood capabilities. A PRT highway just gives us the same suburb's design focus on cars.

This is a faulty assumption. The Personal Automated Transit system proposed allows walkable as well as car-centric communities, all with zero emissions.
I'm dismayed at your attempt to include a sort of religion or even public policy wrapped in a transit system. If there were enough legal merit to forcing people to walk, then ALL people should be forced to walk, not just those who cannot afford a car. "brings people together" can be equated to "spreads disease" like SARS or mumps or whatever, people get together in other places and again, it would only bring people who can't afford (or don't use) cars together. These are VERY weak arguments in favour of mass transit.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

Of course. Unlike for "PRT mode", you have to wait for the right vehicle, you have to stop everywhere someone needs to get off, you have to transfer, you have to share your vehicle, it doesn't have any of the qualities of automobile travel.

"Bus mode" would be used to empty stadiums or for unforeseen events, not as a regular transportation system.

For a dedicated lines subway system, the right vehicle is any vehicle on the line. You just have to add transfers. OMG, I need to share my vehicle!!!! That's exactly the problem with society is, being with people is an horrible thing. Thank god it doesn't.

I don't understand what you mean. Oh that there has to be as much parking as there are vehicles on any system? Yes, that makes sense. The number of vehicles needed compared to the population served is just a fraction of what it would be for an automobile based system.

Something got cut off here...

More cars == more space to store. A bus is quite short for the amount of people that can be put in.

This is a faulty assumption. The Personal Automated Transit system proposed allows walkable as well as car-centric communities, all with zero emissions.
I'm dismayed at your attempt to include a sort of religion or even public policy wrapped in a transit system. If there were enough legal merit to forcing people to walk, then ALL people should be forced to walk, not just those who cannot afford a car. "brings people together" can be equated to "spreads disease" like SARS or mumps or whatever, people get together in other places and again, it would only bring people who can't afford (or don't use) cars together. These are VERY weak arguments in favour of mass transit.

A sort of religion? What are you talking about, people are sheep. There have been numerous studies on how suburban living is bad for the environment, and for the people themselves. I wouldn't support a system that promotes negative lifestyles. It's still my money.

It's the same reason why the transportation committee refused the 174 Highway extension. Sprawl is BAD. It's not about being in favor of mass transit, walking is a better solution, it's about systems that promotes sprawl, and PRT is one of them.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The issue I find with the PRT system is that it focuses too much on moving vehicles rather than efficiently moving people.

It's just as efficient as rail transit - no constant stopping of heavy trains and less wasted movement of vehicles - they are dispatched only to where they are needed.

It focuses on getting people to where they want to go comfortably and without hassles. As soon as you put people together who aren't going to and from exactly to the same places, it will cause inconvenience.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

A big problem would be maintenance. With private driverless cabs, people are bound to do unspeakable things. What happens if the people who use the car before you throw up or have sloppy sex in it? With mere seconds to board and exit, there is really little time to react if the condition of the vehicle is unacceptable to you.

This has been anticipated. A "wave off" button allows damaged cars to be avoided. This can also be used to determine who the last rider was and so vandalism is a bit silly. You will be caught.

I had a friend who peed on the floor in the back of a bus. This is a case for private vehicles. Special private small electric vehicles will be allowed to use the guideway.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Actually the whole PRT concept could be implemented using a wide scale car-sharing program. It would be much cheaper to have a large fleet of electric cars that you can pick up and drop at depots all over the place, much like the bike share programs in Copenhagen or Paris. A Smartcard would give you access to the cars, which would have GPS tracking that records the amount of time and distance you used it, and you get charged on a per-use basis. the cars would be cleaned and charged at the depots, which could be like the "Pez dispenser" things they use for SmartCar dealerships:

Cool picture. You would need people in charge of redistributing the cars which would add to the cost. I had a similar idea for each neighbourhood. Some designated "stations" (parking spaces) would be the "pez dispenser" and you could either take a vehicle and drive to the guideway, or wait in a vehicle until the redistribution train comes along and leads your vehicle to the station.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

For a dedicated lines subway system, the right vehicle is any vehicle on the line. You just have to add transfers. OMG, I need to share my vehicle!!!! That's exactly the problem with society is, being with people is an horrible thing. Thank god it doesn't.

The PAT system would not have dedicated stations like a metro system requires, so you would need to know which vehicle to board.

Now we have god again. If you look at statistics or take polls, you will see that sharing a vehicle, transfers, stops etc... all affect modal choice.

So far, you have a problem with "soccer moms", "fat people" and now "society" in general. You may be the only one riding your metro when you're done excluding people. How does your metro "bring people together"?

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

More cars == more space to store. A bus is quite short for the amount of people that can be put in.

That equation doesn't hold. You need a certain number of buses to maintain headways whether there are passengers or not. Same idea with Personal Automated Transit.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

A sort of religion? What are you talking about, people are sheep. There have been numerous studies on how suburban living is bad for the environment, and for the people themselves. I wouldn't support a system that promotes negative lifestyles. It's still my money.

No, it's everybody's money, including people who live in suburbs. Maybe you don't have kids? People who live in suburbs choose to live there because they need an affordable large house and safe streets free from traffic. It's a lifestyle choice you may not agree with, but it isn't your decision to make.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It's the same reason why the transportation committee refused the 174 Highway extension. Sprawl is BAD. It's not about being in favor of mass transit, walking is a better solution, it's about systems that promotes sprawl, and PRT is one of them.

Sprawl is controlled with zoning LAWS, not by making public transportation unpalatable. It is possible to have good public transportation AND sustainable development. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by Franky

You would need people in charge of redistributing the cars which would add to the cost. I had a similar idea for each neighbourhood. Some designated "stations" (parking spaces) would be the "pez dispenser" and you could either take a vehicle and drive to the guideway, or wait in a vehicle until the redistribution train comes along and leads your vehicle to the station.

But that's my point -- why need a guideway at all when they can use the roads at will? A car-sharing program could work with a mass transit railway in suburbia or exurbia by having a depot at the train station, without having to bring all the cars to the centre of town where storing vehicles would be a space problem.

As for people manning depots, all stations have personnel anyway, or they could be semi-automated affairs where the car gets plugged in when you deposit it and it goes through a diagnostic. If you designed the cars so that they can be automatically cleaned, like those sidewalk toilets in Paris, they could all be mechanically coiffed before re-entering the Pez dispenser.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

But that's my point -- why need a guideway at all when they can use the roads at will? A car-sharing program could work with a mass transit railway in suburbia or exurbia by having a depot at the train station, without having to bring all the cars to the centre of town where storing vehicles would be a space problem.

Vehicles could be cheaper because they don't need as much battery power - the guideway is electrified and your vehicle could even recharge while on the guideway.

Using a rail system and, you're back to using a mass transit system with all it's pitfalls. Certainly, parking at the suburban station if you're going to the city core would be cheaper.

If you can't drive, a system that picks you up and drops you off is better.

Actually, I was thinking of low cost MSV or LSV (Medium or Low Speed Vehicles) which are speed limited and only used for city driving. "Highway" capability would come with access to the guideway.

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

As for people manning depots, all stations have personnel anyway, or they could be semi-automated affairs where the car gets plugged in when you deposit it and it goes through a diagnostic. If you designed the cars so that they can be automatically cleaned, like those sidewalk toilets in Paris, they could all be mechanically coiffed before re-entering the Pez dispenser.

Lol. Sanitized cars. Would they have a paper band over the seat too like in hotels?
I like the idea. Don't know if it can be done or is practical...

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by Franky

The PAT system would not have dedicated stations like a metro system requires, so you would need to know which vehicle to board.

Now we have god again. If you look at statistics or take polls, you will see that sharing a vehicle, transfers, stops etc... all affect modal choice.

Yes, and if there's something I don't trust, is people's opinions, because they are emotional. It's not because someone is for something that it's food for them.

So far, you have a problem with "soccer moms", "fat people" and now "society" in general. You may be the only one riding your metro when you're done excluding people. How does your metro "bring people together"?

Because you have many people dealing with each others, which is something soccer moms don't like. I have a problem with them, because of the health costs associated.

That equation doesn't hold. You need a certain number of buses to maintain headways whether there are passengers or not. Same idea with Personal Automated Transit.

No, it's everybody's money, including people who live in suburbs. Maybe you don't have kids? People who live in suburbs choose to live there because they need an affordable large house and safe streets free from traffic. It's a lifestyle choice you may not agree with, but it isn't your decision to make.

Sprawl is controlled with zoning LAWS, not by making public transportation unpalatable. It is possible to have good public transportation AND sustainable development. They aren't mutually exclusive.

I lived in a 2000 people town for 16 years, I can tell you how many fat people there are because they can't even walk to nowhere. People don't "need" a big house, they want a big house. Again, that's a big difference. People don't do what they really need.

It may be not my decision to be made, but it's still an environmental issue, and related health costs. so it the end, if we can make choices to restrain that, I'm all for it.


Besides your rhetorical questions, continue developping your PRT system, because you still haven't proved how it would work, besides saying that a "bus" PRT system would bring more people in, and it would replace streets. I suggest you also start your own thread on the subject.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Yes, and if there's something I don't trust, is people's opinions, because they are emotional. It's not because someone is for something that it's food for them.


Because you have many people dealing with each others, which is something soccer moms don't like. I have a problem with them, because of the health costs associated.



I lived in a 2000 people town for 16 years, I can tell you how many fat people there are because they can't even walk to nowhere. People don't "need" a big house, they want a big house. Again, that's a big difference. People don't do what they really need.

We live in an affluent society. We can buy strawberries in the dead of winter and drive an SUV to buy a 6 pack and a carton of cigarettes. No, it's not a good lifestyle, I agree, but it's not illegal. If it's not illegal, it's a matter of choice. Buying a big house because you value your sanity and don't want your 4 kids in the same room is a choice. If you want to pass laws making those things illegal, lobby the government. A public transit system is not a morality tool, it's transportation.

My goal is to make more trips sustainable and clean to reduce the impact on the planet. Making an expensive LRT system that few people want to use isn't going to get the job done.

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

It may be not my decision to be made, but it's still an environmental issue, and related health costs. so it the end, if we can make choices to restrain that, I'm all for it.


Besides your rhetorical questions, continue developping your PRT system, because you still haven't proved how it would work, besides saying that a "bus" PRT system would bring more people in, and it would replace streets. I suggest you also start your own thread on the subject.

I think we're aiming for the same goal - environmental sustainability - but differ in our approaches.

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Franky, you are VERY delusional...

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

Franky, you are VERY delusional...

You a shrink?

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Franky

You a shrink?

You could definately use one if you think that your idea of Public Mass Transit is in any way good or effective...

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Jamaican-Phoenix

You could definately use one if you think that your idea of Public Mass Transit is in any way good or effective...

It's obvious you haven't read the proposal for Personal Automated Transit across the Windsor to Québec city corridor.
Here it is:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...hxh_23d8697pd4

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Franky

It's obvious you haven't read the proposal for Personal Automated Transit across the Windsor to Québec city corridor.
Here it is:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...hxh_23d8697pd4

I have, and I still stand by my previous statement.

[rodionx]

The nice thing about crazy ideas is that they sometimes get adopted. However, and although I'll give you full points for thinking different, I just don't see this one succeeding. Simply put, the benefits aren't big enough to warrant the investment. Is this really all that much of an improvement from having people purchase and maintain their own personal transportation devices (ie cars), and drive them as needed to their final destination?

From what I can see, the main advantage of this system is the traffic management aspect - by coordinating traffic flow, you get more throughput for the same number of lanes. In the spirit of wild ideas, then, how about virtual PAT? In virtual PAT, everyone gets to own their own car. However, to use certain routes at certain times (say, Bank Street downtown at rush hour) you have to have a box in your car that allows your vehicle to be controlled remotely, by the same computers that currently control traffic lights.

Once you enter a controlled zone, you'll have to enter your destination so the central computer knows where you're going and can direct you to another road if there's less congestion there. If you want to stop, or resume full control, then you signal a turn and the system lets you leave the controlled zone and assume full control of your vehicle. The boxes could probably assess automated tolls as well, to discourage people from driving during high volume periods.

I have no idea how much more efficient this would be, since it just occurred to me. The nice thing about virtual PAT is that no digging is required, and everyone gets to puke in their own car.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by rodionx

The nice thing about crazy ideas is that they sometimes get adopted. However, and although I'll give you full points for thinking different, I just don't see this one succeeding. Simply put, the benefits aren't big enough to warrant the investment. Is this really all that much of an improvement from having people purchase and maintain their own personal transportation devices (ie cars), and drive them as needed to their final destination?

Only if you consider our aging population with slowing reflexes or those who cannot drive for whatever reason or you worry about GHG emissions or the thousands of people who die in vehicle accidents every year.

Not to mention cars need more roads than this proposal, more parking spaces and so have a bigger impact on traffic and congestion.

Originally Posted by rodionx

From what I can see, the main advantage of this system is the traffic management aspect - by coordinating traffic flow, you get more throughput for the same number of lanes. In the spirit of wild ideas, then, how about virtual PAT? In virtual PAT, everyone gets to own their own car. However, to use certain routes at certain times (say, Bank Street downtown at rush hour) you have to have a box in your car that allows your vehicle to be controlled remotely, by the same computers that currently control traffic lights.

Restrictions aren't one of the advantages of the system, quite the contrary. Cars need more roads than this proposal, more parking spaces and so have a bigger impact on traffic and congestion. Simply restricting access (as is done in London) isn't an improvement in mobility.

Originally Posted by rodionx

Once you enter a controlled zone, you'll have to enter your destination so the central computer knows where you're going and can direct you to another road if there's less congestion there. If you want to stop, or resume full control, then you signal a turn and the system lets you leave the controlled zone and assume full control of your vehicle. The boxes could probably assess automated tolls as well, to discourage people from driving during high volume periods.

Ah, yes, these sorts of systems are being built into GPS devices.
I think our streets are getting so congested (especially in the core) that there are no "less congested" streets.

Originally Posted by rodionx

I have no idea how much more efficient this would be, since it just occurred to me. The nice thing about virtual PAT is that no digging is required, and everyone gets to puke in their own car.

Personal Automated Transit as described in the proposal allows private vehicles riding on bogies to use the system. You CAN puke in your own car - smoke, pick your nose, snooze, read the paper, text, talk on the phone, Play your own tunes loud (or soft)... whatever. This mode will cost more than public transit of course, but for some people it will be worth it.

[AuxTown]

I have two major concerns with the PAT system:

1) It has never been done (anywhere). Why should Ottawa be the test subjects for what could be one of the biggest dissasters in transit history? We deserve a new transit system and we deserve one that works and the only way to do that is back up our spending with studies and previous (similar) examples of systems that work.

2) How can you expect people in Ottawa to buy into such a plan? It's going to cost billions more than anything on the table currently and we just don't have that kind of money. You even mention tax increases and a perfectly good mayor is living on the street two months later with the voters in this city. The PAT system has the potential to be the utopia of transit systems with people travelling on their schedule exactly to their desired location, but I don't think we're willing to pay for that yet; especially considering that only ~30% of the population have any interest in using public transit in the first place.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

I have two major concerns with the PAT system:

1) It has never been done (anywhere). Why should Ottawa be the test subjects for what could be one of the biggest dissasters in transit history? We deserve a new transit system and we deserve one that works and the only way to do that is back up our spending with studies and previous (similar) examples of systems that work.

First of all, the risk is overstated. Even if it's the biggest flop imaginable, it will still be better than LRT! If in a worse possible case, we would have to fill all cars with people peak times and they would have to stop anywhere people want to get off and would have to transfer, that's like LRT. What's better, is that at off-peak hours the system will be available 24/7 and offer taxi-like service.

So, I disagree the "the only way to do that" is to buy something we know won't get the ridership we would like for a stratospheric amount of money. $4 Billion dollars is a LOT of money for a city of less than 1 million, and that's not counting cost overruns we have come to accept as "normal".

And don't forget that when it succeeds, because Canadians can build things that have to work the first time - Canadarm, Dexter and the CN tower for example - We will have built the World's First City Wide and Intercity Personal Automated Transit System!

Originally Posted by O-Town Hockey

2) How can you expect people in Ottawa to buy into such a plan? It's going to cost billions more than anything on the table currently and we just don't have that kind of money. You even mention tax increases and a perfectly good mayor is living on the street two months later with the voters in this city. The PAT system has the potential to be the utopia of transit systems with people travelling on their schedule exactly to their desired location, but I don't think we're willing to pay for that yet; especially considering that only ~30% of the population have any interest in using public transit in the first place.

You are making a case against LRT. The R&D cost of this system will be spread over the Windsor to Québec city corridor. The system itself should come in at less than for LRT because it's a more flexible system. The 4 guideway bundle can splinter off into easily routed, buried, or if needed elevated guideways.

This technology has the very real potential to increase public transit's modal share. Some studies have already been done that show this.

[Justin10000]

I cannot believe you guys gave Franky YET another thread to peddle this idiotic PAT idea!



Anyone who thinks automating the car is a good idea, is clueless. It's stupid. When I drive, I WANT to drive. And not by a computer on a guideway.

I was expecting a thread on the possibitily of a metro, and what do I find?

PAT.

Ugh.

And one thing about the 192 Rocket. Just because there are a couple of runs that are not pack ed to the gill, doesn't mean it is under-utlilized.

[Franky]

Originally Posted by Justin10000

Anyone who thinks automating the car is a good idea, is clueless. It's stupid. When I drive, I WANT to drive. And not by a computer on a guideway.

I was just talking with my neighbour about how there is no easy test for people driving under the influence of marijuana and how that and drunk driving are real problems. No drivers - no drunk drivers.