Personal Rapid Transit for Edmonton

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Medwards

You obviously quoted sundance out of context so you could make no point? What was that point you were trying to make? That your good at ignoring stuff! Congrats! you've succeeded again...

Here's the part you missed

So - really not the fault of the automated cars, and those automated cars aren't fixed to a small guideway like PRT is, and the automated carsalso have to deal with regular traffic (buses, trucks, people, other cars), something else PRT avoids completely... (ie: Lets build duplicate infrastructure so we can have PRT and roads!!, rather than a system that compliments existing infrastructure (roads), like a bus network!)

If you choose to reply to this post, please quote it in full, and do not snippet as you so casually do all the time... ...

If you were aware of the reasons for running PRT cars as totally automated & on a separate guideway, you'd know that the first accident mentioned above- caused by operator error while the robocar was under manual control - wouldn't have happened. Because PRT cars don't operate under manual control.

Second, by separating PRT cars onto their own dedicated guideway, they are removed from interaction with standard cars which are under manual control & the second accident wouldn't have happened either. The elevated guideway provides the additional benefit of separation from cross-traffic & eliminates the barrier that an at-grade rail bed creates - no more "wrong side of the tracks" syndrome.

So, no, Sundance's quote wasn't taken out of context, Medwards, you just didn't understand the full context of E-PRT's answer.

[Landos]

The PRT reasoning goes round in a circles almost like programmed responses.

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

Because we have transit departments that have the same closed minded view as you have that say, show us a big system in operation before we will look at it.

Arguing a case on merits while simultaneously saying the merits are ignored because of "closed minds" is the sophistry of someone with faith, not someone with an argument based on merits.

Also, the "closed minds" excuse, which started a dozen pages ago in this thread, is meaningless because it can be applied equally well to good ideas and perfectly horrible ideas. For example:

"My Plutonium and Arsenic Enriched Baby Food idea will make me rich."
"Are you rich yet?"
"No, because of the 'closed minds' of others!"

Also stop and think about these "witty" responses that sound good but...

How would it be if noboby wanted to try to fly the first airplane until someone else did?
How would it be if noboby wanted to go out to see if the world was flat until someone else did?

Flying an airplane and sailing around the world were a money making ventures. Unless you're saying PRT is a money making venture, you're comparing apples and oranges.

How would it be if noboby wanted to go to the moon until someone else did?

You really want to compare PRT to a massive government project that had success and then died out for 40 years and counting? Stop and think about that. You might be comparing apples and apples.

[Medwards]

Landos:

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

If you were aware of the reasons for running PRT cars as totally automated & on a separate guideway, you'd know that the first accident mentioned above- caused by operator error while the robocar was under manual control - wouldn't have happened. Because PRT cars don't operate under manual control.

Second, by separating PRT cars onto their own dedicated guideway, they are removed from interaction with standard cars which are under manual control & the second accident wouldn't have happened either. The elevated guideway provides the additional benefit of separation from cross-traffic & eliminates the barrier that an at-grade rail bed creates - no more "wrong side of the tracks" syndrome.

So, no, Sundance's quote wasn't taken out of context, Medwards, you just didn't understand the full context of E-PRT's answer.

Thanks Sidewinder.

I highlighted Medwards silly statement about building a separate transit network for PRT. He is being hypocritical because this city has been doing the EXACT SAME THING since 1975. Last time I looked, we have been building a duplicate infrastructure so we can have LRT and roads!!. If I read Medwards comment in that context, he is advocating a bus only transit system on existing roads but I also know he is a strong advocate for LRT with its separate tracks, tunnels, overpasses and at grade tracks that reduce traffic lanes and at grade crossings that interfere with traffic flow and create dangerous car/LRT/pedestrian conflicts.

[moahunter]

^she looks really uncomfortable stuck in there with that creepy guy.

I still think these might be fun to have sex in, cheaper than hotel when cheating on partner or similar.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by moahunter

^she looks really uncomfortable stuck in there with that creepy guy.

I still think these might be fun to have sex in, cheaper than hotel when cheating on partner or similar.

You mean her husband?

BTW, the vehicles come with CCTV cameras for secuity.

[moahunter]

^rats, its not as fun with a mask on

[Edmonton PRT]

But the CCTV is directly connected to YouTube. LOL

[sundance]

Maybe she thinks her husband is creepy.

If we look 20 years in the future the probable scenario is;
The LRT goes to Millwoods, WEM, St. Albert, Airport.

Google licenses its technology, gas prices are $3/L. There are already electric cars, so in 20 years there will be more of them, will they be a majority? That is possible and somewhat dependent on gas prices.

So where does PRT fit into the future? With electric cars and cars that drive themselves there really is no niche for them. They have dedicated roadways/guideways/rails, cars do not. We might have a more automated transit system where the buses drive themselves (I imagine the union will not like that).

I don't see any empty niches where PRT will fit, they only spots would be areas where people don't have cars, or development would be controlled, leading us back to university or hospital campuses.

[kkozoriz]

I recall suggesting that PRT be included in the SOuth Campus lands if the Expo bid had gone through. EPRT wasn't interested in even a pilot project because he wanted a city wide system from the get go.

You would think that a pilot program would be the first step to bridging the gap between PRT as an airport shuttle system and a full on transit system but apparently not.

It would be interesting to have a public meeting where PRT is shown to a group of people and watch their reaction to having elevated guideways and stations with stairs and elevators in front of their houses. How much less intrusive is a bus stop sign?

[Edmonton PRT]

Robocars are not a mass transit system and get in the same traffic jams, parking requirements, cost of ownership, insurance and drivers licence as conventional automobiles.

Robocars should be in another thread altogether.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

I recall suggesting that PRT be included in the SOuth Campus lands if the Expo bid had gone through. EPRT wasn't interested in even a pilot project because he wanted a city wide system from the get go.

You would think that a pilot program would be the first step to bridging the gap between PRT as an airport shuttle system and a full on transit system but apparently not.

It would be interesting to have a public meeting where PRT is shown to a group of people and watch their reaction to having elevated guideways and stations with stairs and elevators in front of their houses. How much less intrusive is a bus stop sign?

False. I have encouraged and advocated pilot scale projects including a downtown loop, a formal Northlands proposal, a formal NAIT Campus proposal and even on the 104th street funicular but I did not make any plans for EXPO because our chances of a successful bid were slim to none.

[sundance]

PRT isn't a mass transit scheme either, look how far the cars are spaced, you 5 to 10x the motorvehicles in than in the typical PRT system. There is still a cost of ownership with PRT it is just shifted to the taxpayers or airport authorities. As far as insurance or license if the technology for automated cars is proven you will not need insurance (or it could be substantially reduced), similarly for license requirements could be substantially reduced.

Traffic jams are created for a number of reasons, driver error, accidents, weather. Automated vehicles take driver error out of the list and should reduce accidents. Automated vehicles have been proven already in DARPA tests to run safely at 6" separation between vehicles, roadways and bridges are already built (for the most part) to take the additional weight loads. If they are running at 6" separation all the time you also reduce the weather impact as less rain or snow actually hits the roadway.

If you can fit cars closer together they can drive as a unit saving the need to construct wider roads, the current driving guideline is around 53m when travelling at 80 km/h.

Quesnell Bridge is 319.8 m long
Safe stopping distance 52.7 m at 80 km/h
3 Lanes
5 m car length
319.8m / (53m+5m/car) x 3 lanes = 16.5 cars

So with automated cars traveling at 6" apart (0.15m) you get;
319.8 / (5.15) x 3 = 186.29 cars


Yah somehow I think automated cars WILL impact traffic jams

Plus traveling this far apart there is reduced wind resistance. They as well can be designed to accelerate gradually and decelerate by coasting reducing energy requirements.

[kkozoriz]

I suggested a pilot project when the Expo plans were being discussed and you dismissed it. Would it not be better, easier and cheaper to create a PER demonstrator as part of the Expo lands rather than building one in an already built up area like downtown? It could have tied into the existing bus/LRT network and from there extended into the surrounding neighbourhoods. I think that sort of approach would have worked much better than trying to convince all the different stakeholders downtown to tie into it.

It would have even worked with the Expo theme of energy based on your comments upstream.

Do you have any pictures of station integration an a single family home setting? The vast majority of Edmonton's transit network operates in such settings. You have stated that you would enthusiastically allow a station in front of your house (which I assume you own) complete with stairs and elevator. How would other people react to that along with the overhead components?

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

Thanks Sidewinder.

I highlighted Medwards silly statement about building a separate transit network for PRT. He is being hypocritical because this city has been doing the EXACT SAME THING since 1975. Last time I looked, we have been building a duplicate infrastructure so we can have LRT and roads!!. If I read Medwards comment in that context, he is advocating a bus only transit system on existing roads but I also know he is a strong advocate for LRT with its separate tracks, tunnels, overpasses and at grade tracks that reduce traffic lanes and at grade crossings that interfere with traffic flow and create dangerous car/LRT/pedestrian conflicts.

no, sorry, wrong again silly oranges and bananas.

LRT compliments the bus network. PRT tries to duplicate both and provides none of the benefits, at least in your version of it...

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

... Last time I looked, we have been building a duplicate infrastructure so we can have LRT and roads!!. If I read Medwards comment in that context, he is advocating a bus only transit system on existing roads but I also know he is a strong advocate for LRT with its separate tracks, tunnels, overpasses and at grade tracks that reduce traffic lanes and at grade crossings that interfere with traffic flow and create dangerous car/LRT/pedestrian conflicts.

prt and lrt are not identical. prt - as you have so often pointed out when it suits your argument - is completely different from lrt.

lrt infrastructure is considered to be complementary to road infrastructure and not a duplicate. in some ways it is much more efficient. however, as long as prt cannot efficiently and effectively deliver anything that road infrastructure and lrt cannot also deliver given similar investment and similar timeframes, then prt at the end of the day will continue to be nothing more than duplicate infrastructure, not alternative infrastructure.

while prt may be more efficient in some circumstances (i.e. heathrow) just as the las vegas monorail can be rationalized for a particular set of circumstances does not endow it with universal suitability.

just because they all move people does not make them duplicate nor does it make them either equal or interchangeable.

[Edmonton PRT]

"as long as prt cannot efficiently and effectively deliver anything that road infrastructure and lrt cannot also deliver given similar investment"

Hasty generalization

If you look back through the thread, PRT can compliment a bus network, it can act as a feeder network to LRT, it can be placed in locations where LRT is not practical or even desirable. LRT requires an extensive feeder system of buses and large parking lots for private cars, something that PRT can compliment. It can provide service faster and more efficiently than buses and at a lower cost to which I have supplied supporting information.

And I agree that "prt and lrt are not identical" and that is because PRT can do many things better than LRT especially in a low density city like Edmonton. LRT makes sense for line haul applications like the NELRT with several large transit nodes like the arena and the stadium or to Millwoods but now the costs of new routes are becoming exorbitant.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

"as long as prt cannot efficiently and effectively deliver anything that road infrastructure and lrt cannot also deliver given similar investment"

Hasty generalization

If you look back through the thread, PRT can compliment a bus network, it can act as a feeder network to LRT, it can be placed in locations where LRT is not practical or even desirable. LRT requires an extensive feeder system of buses and large parking lots for private cars, something that PRT can compliment. It can provide service faster and more efficiently than buses and at a lower cost to which I have supplied supporting information.

is my post a hasty generalization or your response still wishful thinking (and possibly always, not just still?).

just because things "can" be done doesn't mean that they "should" be done nor does it mean that they will work particualrly well after they have been done or that they will work better than numerous other things that "can" also be done.

at the end of the day prt can compliment buses and private cars all it wants, that doesn't mean it is capable of being complementary.

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

That you violated the rules of the C2E Forum.

Originally Posted by Medwards

I haven't violated anything. Take it up with your own ignorance... you've violated the golden rule... If you want to put up disparaging photos of Ken Avidor, expect the same will be done to you.

could you two either GROW UP or use the IGNORE feature for each other?

obviously neither one of you is going to pay any attention to the other's crap except for using it to antagonize the other even more.

and yes i know you can both keep it up and let everyone else use their option of putting both of you on their IGNORE lists. but that doesn't say much about the value you place on your own opinions instead of your own egos if you're that willing to have everyone else not pay any attention to them just so you can continue to act out your petty "did/didn't/did/didn't..." childish games.

[Moderator3]

Alright folks, it's time to take a break from this debate. This thread is closed until further notice.

[Admin]

I left kcantor's post there. It says it all.

[Admin]

I will reopen this as I'm told there are more recent developments.

[Edmonton PRT]

Construction begins on Personal Rapid Transit system being built privately to connect rail station, bus terminal, parking lots to major religious site in dense urban environment.

Ultra Fairwood, the collaboration between Ultra and Fairwood created to bring the Ultra technology to Asia, has been awarded a contract for the world’s first urban Passenger Rapid Transport (PRT) system in Amritsar, India.
Amritsar represents the first urban application of PRT. At peak capacity the Amritsar system can carry up to 100,000 passengers a day on a 8km / 4.8 mile elevated guideway in over 200 pods between seven stations, making it the world’s largest PRT system to date.
Financed entirely by private funding on a build, own, operate transfer (BOOT) basis, passenger services will go live in 2014. Although the cost of the scheme is subject to commercial confidentiality, it demonstrates that a large scale urban PRT system can be delivered on a financially viable, fare-based model and offer very real returns for financial backers.

The route will focus on taking passengers from the railway and bus stations to the Golden Temple and will:

• Take 35% of daily visitors to the Golden Temple
• Save up to 30 minutes on the current journey times
• Attract passengers from a wide geographic and demographic profile, from regular
  commuters to “one off day trip” users.
• Run from 04.00 – 24.00 seven days a week
• Charge fares competitive with alternative modes such as taxis and auto-rickshaws.

Artist's impression of the PRT system in Amritsar (Image by DCA Design)




http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/worlds...tem-announced/


http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/pop-pod/

[moahunter]

^I love the way they write "Although the cost of the scheme is subject to commercial confidentiality, it demonstrates that a large scale urban PRT system can be delivered on a financially viable, fare-based model and offer very real returns for financial backers.", even though it hasn't started to be built, we don't know how much is invested, and we have no idea yet whether it will or won't make money.

If it were commercially viable / paid for itself like the article suggests, we would be seeing these systems pop up all over the place. It doesn't prove anything until its built and making money. Oh well...

[Medwards]

any pictures of the stations? Seems to travel pretty far between stations... unlike the scenarios drawn up for Edmonton.

[Arsoys]

What is the density in Amritsar?

Why should their experience be of any use here?

[kkozoriz]

Looks like a system to move people to one location, the Golden Temple, from various parking and transportation nodes. Hardly a full on rapid transit system that serves the city at large. It's more like the monorail at Disneyworld or the AirTran line at JFK.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by Medwards

any pictures of the stations? Seems to travel pretty far between stations... unlike the scenarios drawn up for Edmonton.

300 to 700 meters between stations

This is the largest station designed to handle 100,000 passengers a day

[Medwards]

that... quite the station... and visual intrustion...

I still don't see this fit as a replacement for transit systems here Edmonton or most North America cities... would work good in an airport or large campus-like setting with a few stations....

[Edmonton PRT]

You do realize that a very large station is required to handle 100,000 passengers a day for a single location. The other stations are smaller and in Edmonton's case, most stations would be far smaller to handle a few hundred to a few thousand boardings a day.

Something like this.





This is the Heathrow station that can handle 100-120 vehicles per hour, 200-500 people per hour

[Edmcowboy11]

And again I think something like this could be tried out on a smaller scale and if it works expand it. UofA main campus and Downtown are two potential locations to try something like this out.

[RichardS]

I would have to agree with the small scale implementation thoughts...if it actually helps...

...this does not appear to be a good solution for a city-wide system...maybe a distribution system for a high density node downtown but connected to a large scale LRT or the like...

...but let's also not forget that the car is not going away anytime soon. The fuel may change, but there is so much invested in roadways that investing in elevated guideways for a PRT seems a bit...um...unnecessary at best...

Just my $0.02

[moahunter]

I know which one of these, I would rather live next to:

[Edmonton PRT]

^^ To place this PRT system in perspective it will serve 100,000 riders per day, will have 4km of dual track and 7 stations, construction entrirely privately funded.

Our first LRT system had less than 50,000 riders, 6.9 km and 5 stations, construction entirely publicly funded.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by moahunter

I know which one of these, I would rather live next to:

You are looking at the largest station and ignore smaller scale stations

LRT can have huge stations as well


The point is that station size is determined by spacing, density and boardings. Some LRT stations are small, other are large. Some PRT stations are small and others are large. In general, PRT stations can be made much smaller because the vehicles are not 400 feet long, are demand responsive and do not have long waiting times for large groups of people.

[kkozoriz]

But it is still essentially the same as a people mover at an airport, bringing people to a central location rom parking, transit, etc. It's not a transit system it's a people mover. It would be like trying to use low floor LRT to replace the bus system. Different tools for different jobs.

What happens when a pod breaks down on one of the legs? There's none of the alternate routes you show on your city wide maps.

[highlander]

That's a poor example. Low floor LRT is exactly a bus replacement, just usually one line at a time. Although when it's a bus replacement it's usually called tram.

[kkozoriz]

Low floor LRT doesn't stop every block or two except downtown. LRT is more a replacement for express or limited service buses not neighborhood service.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

But it is still essentially the same as a people mover at an airport, bringing people to a central location rom parking, transit, etc. It's not a transit system it's a people mover. It would be like trying to use low floor LRT to replace the bus system. Different tools for different jobs.

The Amritsar system has only two legs but just look at our current LRT system. After 35 years we still have only one single line in operation. So by your logic, Edmonton's LRT is not a transit system either, it's a people mover. PRT is a different tool. It is not a tram, it is not a bus, it is not a taxi, it is not a LRT, it is not a private automobile. It is many of the best features of each of these systems. It is automated, lower cost than LRT or trams, easier to create routes, more stations, can be used as a feeder to LRT, trains and bus terminals, available 24 hours a day, no schedules, little or no waiting times, 100% handicapped accessible, allows luggage, strollers and bicycles, ability to relocate guideways, scalable, network-able, does not interfere with pedestrians or auto traffic, and more.

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

What happens when a pod breaks down on one of the legs? There's none of the alternate routes you show on your city wide maps.

Check out the Vectus video that shows how PRT systems can handle snow and ice, merging, short headways, brick wall stopping, clearing breakdowns using pushing or towing using automatic systems.

These are the same tests and exercises that they do with LRT systems and trams.

An important point is that there is less potential for problems with PRT systems because a separated guideway that avoids accidents with pedestrians and car traffic.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by highlander

That's a poor example. Low floor LRT is exactly a bus replacement, just usually one line at a time. Although when it's a bus replacement it's usually called tram.

A $100 Million/km replacement for a bus

[kkozoriz]

As opposed to a "We won't say how much it'll cost but just take our work for it that it'll be cheap" PRT people mover.

[Edmonton PRT]

Be reasonable. No one is expecting blind faith. The Amritsar PRT is a public benefit being built with private funds and is subject to commercial confidentiality. Unlike another project in the City that is being funded with public money.


PRT systems can be fully public, a P3 or built entirely privately if they can lease the ROW from the City. Any proposal would require public hearings, a standard tendering process and Council approval. In the Amritsar example, the system is entirely private and is built a a for profit enterprise at the builder/operator cost and therefore are not required to disclose their costs but there is information on the manufacturer's site that is supplying the equipment. The Amritsar government has approved the proposal as a benefit to residents and visitors to ease congestion and reduce pollution. They have agreed on fares, service levels and will meet all local requirements.

Elected officials at ground breaking ceremony



Mr. Sukhbir Singh Badal, Deputy Chief Minister Punjab today said that
within next two years zero-polluting pods would be made functional in Amritsar to ease the traffic congestion as well as to facilitate those visiting the Golden Temple.



The costs of building one version of PRT called ULTra is on their website at $7-$15M/km and you can find out more at http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/how-it-works/costs/

There is also a FAQ section
http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/how-it-works/qa/

[moahunter]

^Being India, it wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing is a scam to line some burecrats pockets.

[Edmonton PRT]

Your comment does not surprise me either.

[moahunter]

^I'm surprised you haven't posted this one yet, starts with Phoenix LRT, then changes to fantasy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRD3o...layer_embedded

[Dialog]

Wow that's hysterical.

"They don't want this because it's too free. It's too free and open"

"If we lived in a free market economy..."

[Edmonton PRT]

Can we have a constructive conversation please?

[Medwards]

sure, how about you take the lead on that...

[moahunter]

Originally Posted by Dialog

Wow that's hysterical.

"They don't want this because it's too free. It's too free and open"

"If we lived in a free market economy..."

It is, supposedly the US would have these 100m/hr pods already for the cost of one LRT line, if the US weren't such a socialist nation that prevents them from being built...

[Edmonton PRT]

Building a new transportation system is very difficult. Just look at how long it has taken to build and expand our LRT system or even picking a route. You even have to move the route because of the negative feng shui. So it is the same for PRT but even worse because people are familiar with LRT for 35 years, PRT is not familiar with most people and you get all these negative reactions and fear mongering.

For example, from 2002–2005, the EDICT project, sponsored by the European Union, conducted a study on the feasibility of PRT in four European cities. The study involved 12 research organizations, and concluded that PRT:[8]

• would provide future cities "a highly accessible, user-responsive, environmental friendly transport system which offers a sustainable and economic solution."
• could "cover its operating costs, and provide a return which could pay for most, if not all, of its capital costs."
• would provide "a level of service which is superior to that available from conventional public transport"
• would be "well received by the public, both public transport and car users."

The report also concluded that, despite these advantages, public authorities will not commit to building PRT because of the risks associated with being the first public implementation.[8][9]

[Medwards]

^ not to mention the PRT is much more of a visual intrusion.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by Medwards

^ not to mention the PRT is much more of a visual intrusion.

That depends on the design and personal opinion. There are many places where LRT is more of both an intrustion and a barrier in a neighbourhood. In fact, crossing a LRT track can get you arrested in Edmonton even if there is no trains in sight.

[kkozoriz]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

That depends on the design and personal opinion. There are many places where LRT is more of both an intrustion and a barrier in a neighbourhood. In fact, crossing a LRT track can get you arrested in Edmonton even if there is no trains in sight.

So you can cross a ground level PRT line at any time? Cool.

[Edmonton PRT]

No, it would be elevated in pedestrian areas.

[Medwards]

^ what an eye sore... especially the second to last. Consider the fact how many people an LRT line will move, and how many more poles would be needed to have PRT carry anywhere near the same amount of people.

Might as well just block out the sun completely.

[Medwards]

The next post by EPRT will probably contain 1 or 2 of the following images: 1 LRT just south of South Campus, or LRT crossing the river...

[kkozoriz]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

You do realize that a very large station is required to handle 100,000 passengers a day for a single location. The other stations are smaller and in Edmonton's case, most stations would be far smaller to handle a few hundred to a few thousand boardings a day.

Something like this.





This is the Heathrow station that can handle 100-120 vehicles per hour, 200-500 people per hour

That's funny, both of these shots seem to be stations on the ground. In the case of the first one it seems to be six feet tall and fairly long as well, including the guideway. Might as well use LRT to get some actual capacity.

If PRT is so safe, why is there the steel fence in the second picture?

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

That's funny, both of these shots seem to be stations on the ground. In the case of the first one it seems to be six feet tall and fairly long as well, including the guideway. Might as well use LRT to get some actual capacity.

Stations can be on the ground, elevated or underground. Most PRT systems can handle 10 or 20 percent grades, some 100%. That means a guideway can elevated 16 feet over roadways, 7 feet over sidewalks and stations can be at 16 ft, 7 feet or at grade. A station can be as short as 30 to 40 feet or much larger depending on capacity required at each station. With LRT every station must be 400 feet long. With PRT a busy station can be 150 ft, the next in a quiet neighbourhood could be 35 and the next 80 ft. If a condo complex is built beside a small station, it can easily be lengthed.

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

If PRT is so safe, why is there the steel fence in the second picture?

The PRT vehicles can detect pedestrians but fences are used at grade to prevent inadvertant events. We do the same around school fields

[kkozoriz]

But the fences continue up the guideways in the background, even in between the two guideways.

That's still quite the barrier to pedestrians you posted.

[Medwards]

What's wrong with the existing prt network?

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

But the fences continue up the guideways in the background, even in between the two guideways.

That's still quite the barrier to pedestrians you posted.

The original design that was approved was a slim post and cable design.



During the construction of the guideway at Heathrow they put up construction fencing to prevent falls.


As construction neared completion, it was decided to leave the construction fences up as a cost saving measure



As you can see by the green grass below the guideway, pedestrians and motorists can go under the PRT easily




The PRT system will ease congestion and not interfere with normal pedestrian and bus traffic in Amritsar











I don't see where pedestrians would have trouble with this? Just be careful that you don't walk into a post.



Lets compare to our LRT where often you cannot cross by car or by foot for 500 meters or more

[Edmonton PRT]

North Hills Plans Personal Rapid Transit




Kane Realty Corporation and ULTra PRT have announced the start of a feasibility study to bring PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) to Midtown Raleigh. ULTra PRT, makers of the ULTra system, has visited the Triangle several times in the past year as the area continues to explore transit options. “Transit economics for North Hills are promising because the density generates demand for many internal trips within the property,” said Nick Ford of ULTra Prt.

PRT is an electric, battery-driven, elevated transit system with four-person vehicles. PRT would connect all North Hills areas. Users will be able to take individual electric cars on demand, point-to-point to the station of their choice and solve the “last mile problem,” to connect from the transit stop to the final destination.

The first ULTra System in operation at London’s Heathrow Airport began limited passenger service this year at Terminal 5. John Kane, who rode the train earlier this month said: “The ride was smooth and very efficient. The benefit of this system is the minimal wait time as each car comes and goes when passengers are ready instead of waiting for a large carrier (bus or train) to fill up with passengers to run only at scheduled times.”

North Hills plans a $750 million build out that will create the density, said North Hills. The feasibility study is expected to be complete by next summer.

[kkozoriz]

So the smaller station drawing that you posted doesn't exist? All the pods are above ground? There's no stations that bloc pedestrians? That big one in India looks like quite the barrier.

The LRT is part of the transit system. It connects multiple destinations with multiple outlying stations. The PRT in India takes people to exactly ONE destination. It's not part of the existing transit system. It's a people move just like you'd find at an airport.

Where are the city wide, profit making, no expense to the municipality systems you keep touting?

PRT has it's place. It's at airports and campuses, not running down every other block city wide. Stop thinking that it's something that it's not.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by kkozoriz

So the smaller station drawing that you posted doesn't exist? ... That big one in India looks like quite the barrier.
...

Currently, neither the large station nor the small station exist. Why complain about the large one being an eyesore, if it doesn't exist, & then complain that the small one (which presumably wouldn't be an eyesore) doesn't exist?

Further, the large station will be located right outside the Golden Temple complex, which the illustration shows clearly in the background. It is appropriately sized for the site, for the size of the buildings near it, & for the volume of traffic it is expected to handle.

Here are some other links to the complex, so you can see how large the existing structures are.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...le-of-amritsar

http://travel.sulekha.com/golden-tem...oto-125952.htm

The LRT is part of the transit system. It connects multiple destinations with multiple outlying stations. The PRT in India takes people to exactly ONE destination. It's not part of the existing transit system. It's a people move just like you'd find at an airport.
...

This PRT system **will** be part of an existing transit system once it is built. It will connect existing rail & bus terminals with a high-traffic destination & multiple points in between (I count 7 stations in total on the route map).

By your argument, LRT (before it is built) should not be built because it would not be part of an existing transit system. This is a bad argument regardless of which transit mode you support.

So you can cross a ground level PRT line at any time?"

Of course not, which is why PRT designs are elevated. If a PRT system descends to ground level & creates a blockage it is the exception rather than the rule.

In LRT designs, on the other hand, crossing points are the exception & blockage is the rule. But I expect you know that already, right?

[Edmonton PRT]

kkozoriz, you have been following this thread for over two years and are asking the same questions again.

I have posted many small station designs, some elevated that have been built such as this one

Which was both a PRT and GRT built in the 1970's

To ground level stations within buildings like the new one in Masdar City


to low level stations like this one in Sweden



As you can clearly see thgese stations are not barriers at all. Even the large station in the Amritsar design that canhandle tens of thousands of riders every day in a dense urban environment is no more a barrier to pedestrians than a common bus transit centre



None of the PRT stations are as large as any LRT station in Edmonton and do not block pedestrian access like LRT does for more than 500 meter sections.

I have never stated that there are city wide PRT systems built. There are plans being made as we speak for larger and larger system as this new technology keeps proving itself. The Heathrow PRT system did not cost the municipality money and saves 500,000 shuttle bus trips annually with only 21 4 passenger vehicles that are used on average 50 times a day with zero to one minute waiting times. The one in India will not cost that city a dime and will result in enormous reductions in congestion and has 7 stations connecting a bus terminal, a train station and several other locations so it is an transit system.

[Medwards]

What's wrong with the existing PRT network in Edmonton? The existing PRT network in Edmonton is a glowing success. over 80% of commuters use it already. There is no ugly overhead infrastructure, you don't have to go far to get to the nearest pod station (usually there is one attached to every house hold). Pedestrain don't have to worry about running into poles. The Edmonton PRT network also allows the transportation of goods, and facilitates mass-transit for people that can't afford their own PRT Pod. It connects well with every other PRT system in north america. In fact, I could get into my pod now, and travel clear across the continent with out having to switch to another method...

Seems we already have PRT here in North America.

[Medwards]

EPRT - when you are comparing things, could you at least compare them with things of equal capacity.

Ie: here's what a PRT station and line would look like that can carry 100,000 people a day. Here's an LRT station and line that carries 100,000 people a day.

Right now, its "here's a prt station/line that can load a few thousand people a day versus an LRT station and line that does carry 100,000 people a day" (Apples to Oranges which many people have pointed out is your famous tactic here)

[edmonton daily photo]

Why?

Edmonton is not going to runt a prt system. Full stop

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by Medwards

What's wrong with the existing PRT network in Edmonton? The existing PRT network in Edmonton is a glowing success. over 80% of commuters use it already. There is no ugly overhead infrastructure, you don't have to go far to get to the nearest pod station (usually there is one attached to every house hold). Pedestrain don't have to worry about running into poles. The Edmonton PRT network also allows the transportation of goods, and facilitates mass-transit for people that can't afford their own PRT Pod. It connects well with every other PRT system in north america. In fact, I could get into my pod now, and travel clear across the continent with out having to switch to another method...

Seems we already have PRT here in North America.

Personal automobiles are the problem, not the solution.

Cars are very different from PRT:

• A car costs $6,000 a year or more to operate and maintain
• cars require a licence and insurance
• children and teenagers cannot drive cars
• the elderly and handicapped have difficulty with driving and the cost of ownership
• every car requires 3 to 7 parking spaces city wide
• cars pollute more and there are few elerictric cars in Edmonton
• cars are not public transportation
• cars are subject to traffic congestion, accidents and weather issues

but you know that.

[Edmonton PRT]

Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo

Why?

Edmonton is not going to runt a prt system. Full stop

You can predict the future? Wow!

[kkozoriz]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

kkozoriz, you have been following this thread for over two years and are asking the same questions again.

I have posted many small station designs, some elevated that have been built such as this one

It's still quite the intrusion compared to a simpler neighbourhood stop like this...



Would you replace all the bus stops with your small stations that include stairs and an elevator? Or would they drop down to ground level every couple of blocks, right in front of peoples houses? I know you would be thrilled with it but I certainly wouldn't.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT

Personal automobiles are the problem, not the solution.

Cars are very different from PRT:

• A car costs $6,000 a year or more to operate and maintain
• cars require a licence and insurance
• children and teenagers cannot drive cars
• the elderly and handicapped have difficulty with driving and the cost of ownership
• every car requires 3 to 7 parking spaces city wide
• cars pollute more and there are few elerictric cars in Edmonton
• cars are not public transportation
• cars are subject to traffic congestion, accidents and weather issues

but you know that.

• Ya, because a PRT car would have no cost. Actually, it would have cost, its just paid through different means. The existing PRT network actually allows for mass transit, you actually don't need a car, or the expense that goes along with it. Buses are far cheaper to operate than PRT. Not to mention the cost of having to buy all the land required for PRT, and all the extra unneeded PRT infrastructure. PRT is not free, like you have alluded to. Someone has to pay for the land it uses, the duplication of networks, the pod vehicles... And the city isn't going to get that for free, neither will some private investor...
• Buses do not require a licence, or insurance, except by the city. The city would need to ensure that buses drivers are licenced, and buses insured. But you would also need insurance for your PRT network.
• Children can take a bus, so can elderly. No need for a duplicate PRT network either! The bus travels on the same means as the existing PRT network.
• The edlerly and handicap would have trouble accessing the stairs at every PRT station, and also getting to the PRT station. Using the existing PRT network, there are hardly any stairs, and the platforms are at street level.
• Cars don't need 3-7 parking spots across the city. They need one at a time. Parking spaces are shared, and can be allocated to other pods (cars).
• Cars have become quite efficient in the last 30 years, and actually don't pollute that much. Your proposed PRT network would run on what? Sunshine and lollipops? Electric power made from coal or natural gas? Cause ya, that doesn't pollute.
• Cars share the same network as public transportation, and also transportation of goods and service. There is no needless duplication for a single mode of transportation.
• Cars are subject to delays, and so would single track PRT systems... which is just about all you show in your pictures. Single track, single direction PRT. You mean I have to go around in a circle to go back home? How inefficient!
• Cars can travel across just about anywhere in North America. Your PRT pods are limited to the short circular single direction track its on, with limited destinations and starting points.

But wait, you weren't comparing cars to PRT in your pictures. You were comparing PRT to other transit systems.... Maybe you can make a point by point blow of how PRT works compared to the bus and LRT networks (no, not one or the other, both, as they part of a complete system, like PRT claims to be a complete system)

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by Medwards

EPRT - when you are comparing things, could you at least compare them with things of equal capacity.
...
Right now, its "here's a prt station/line that can load a few thousand people a day versus an LRT station and line that does carry 100,000 people a day" (Apples to Oranges which many people have pointed out is your famous tactic here)

I have to disagree with you - EPRT has posted illustrations of PRT stations of various sizes and it has always been clear to me that the illustrations show the scalability of the system compared to rail stations that must be large enough to accommodate the longest train that will stop there.

Rather it was moahunter that recently compared apples with oranges in his post captioned "I know which one of these, I would rather live next to" where he compared a large capacity PRT station to a small capacity LRT station. And, even so, the small capacity LRT station was shot in a fashion that half the station was behind the photographer's back.

kkozoriz writes: "It's still quite the intrusion compared to a simpler neighbourhood stop like this..."
True, but what is the service level to the little "flag on a pole" stop you depict? Once every 30 minutes during 6am-8am & 4pm-6pm, five days a week, once per hour off-peak until 10pm? No service on weekends? Transfer required to get almost anywhere you might want to go?

PRT stops in a neighborhood like this would be a couple of blocks over on a major street & would have service available 24/7/365. No transfers, no intermediate stops.

[Medwards]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

I have to disagree with you

You can certainly do this. But aren't you the same person as EPRT?

- EPRT has posted illustrations of PRT stations of various sizes and it has always been clear to me that the illustrations show the scalability of the system compared to rail stations that must be large enough to accommodate the longest train that will stop there.

EPRT/you will post a small PRT station with very low capacity, and compare that to an LRT line that carries 100,000 people. That's called comparing an apple to an orange.

kkozoriz writes: "It's still quite the intrusion compared to a simpler neighbourhood stop like this..."
True

Great. EPRT/Sidewinder agree with the consensus here, PRT is quite the intrusion, and a needless duplicate of the street network.

but what is the service level to the little "flag on a pole" stop you depict?

Service levels can adjust to the demand that is required of them, with out duplicating the street network. There could be a bus once day, or every minute 24/7. If you need something on-demand, the street network already provides that. It's called a car.

Once every 30 minutes during 6am-8am & 4pm-6pm, five days a week, once per hour off-peak until 10pm? No service on weekends? Transfer required to get almost anywhere you might want to go?

I guess when you want to be objective, you'd do better than this last quote^

PRT stops in a neighborhood like this would be a couple of blocks over on a major street & would have service available 24/7/365. No transfers, no intermediate stops.

Well, first, in order for their to be PRT stops in a neighbourhood like this, you'd have to duplicate the existing street network. Then in order for their to be no transfer, no intermediate stops, you'd have to assume to other person is travelling by bus, and also that the PRT network has completely duplicated all of the street network.

Again - can someone point out the purpose of duplicating our street network?

[kkozoriz]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

I have to disagree with you - EPRT has posted illustrations of PRT stations of various sizes and it has always been clear to me that the illustrations show the scalability of the system compared to rail stations that must be large enough to accommodate the longest train that will stop there.

Rather it was moahunter that recently compared apples with oranges in his post captioned "I know which one of these, I would rather live next to" where he compared a large capacity PRT station to a small capacity LRT station. And, even so, the small capacity LRT station was shot in a fashion that half the station was behind the photographer's back.

kkozoriz writes: "It's still quite the intrusion compared to a simpler neighbourhood stop like this..."
True, but what is the service level to the little "flag on a pole" stop you depict? Once every 30 minutes during 6am-8am & 4pm-6pm, five days a week, once per hour off-peak until 10pm? No service on weekends? Transfer required to get almost anywhere you might want to go?

PRT stops in a neighborhood like this would be a couple of blocks over on a major street & would have service available 24/7/365. No transfers, no intermediate stops.

Let's see, onthe street I grew up on there were three bus stops in each direction over a distance of 5 blocks. That's three of your "little" stations on this section of road, each complete with concrete stairs and an elevator. Let's duplicate that every, let's say four blocks in residential areas.

The city currently runs from aproximatly 17th street in the east to 215 street in the west, a distance of 198 blocks. Therefore we're looking at about one PRT stop, let's expand it a bit to every 4 blocks as well. (Note, this means we're getting fewer stops than with the bus system) That gives us about 50 stops across the city east to west.

North to south we run from 180 ave in the north to about 30 ave SW. That's 210 blocks. Divide by evey four blocks also gives us roughly 50 stops.

Cover the city evenly, ignoring the river valley but we could imagine that it would also cover St. Albert & Sherwood park. 50 x 50 = 2500 stops. Look at that number and imagine the cost to build roughly 2500 of these:



Include 2500 elevators don't forget. Or ePRT could build the stations on the ground and you could have this outside your front window:




Notice that I've used photographs for both examples and not computer renderings that have no real world counterpart.

Now, some stations would be larger than others but ePRT is of the opinion that building owners would be falling all over themselves to offer to build stations inside their buildings just to get people inside.

Another thing to think about. PRT downtown would essentially be a pedway system that you don't even have to go downtown to use. Walk a few block (probably further than your current bus stop), hop in a pod, go downtown, go building to bulding via another pod and go back home. You've never even set foot outside when you were downtown. You think the sidewalks are dead now?

[Admin]

OH MY GOODNESS!

Stop. Now. No more personal attacks.

One loathes PRT (the system). One loves PRT (the system). We get it. Oh Lord love a duck, WE GET IT.

No more addresses that could be personal (read any address that is a house, condo, or other residence). Take a buisness as a start point, and let's use 10020 100 street as a terminus. There you have bus, LRT, and even a helipad. I'll give you a start address. 8720-149 Street. That's the best bakery in the city in my opinion, the Bon Ton Bakery. Use this route from now on.

EDIT.

This thread is a mess. I have a blasted headache just trying to sort all this out. I am going to close this for now.