[d_jeffrey]

I have updated the plan with the O-Train commuter train connections and stations for the city of Ottawa ONLY.

http://www.ottawatransit.ca/map.html

http://www.ottawatransit.ca/pictures/metroMap.png

[steve81]

Live Maps version updated:

http://maps.live.com/?v=2&cid=DFE85B5F7F57B5CD!143&encType=1

[d_jeffrey]

Live Maps version updated:

http://maps.live.com/?v=2&cid=DFE85B5F7F57B5CD!143&encType=1

Thanks, looks really good!

Also, for the LRTFriend, here is a pic of the stretch section of the ground canada line part:

http://www.seataf.com/blogs/canadaline/2007-10-22/images/KICX2479.jpg

[O-Town Hockey]

Are you proposing that the entirety of the first phase (downtown tunnel to the airport) be double-tracked? What about the tunnel under Dow's Lake, do you think it can remain as a single track?

[d_jeffrey]

Are you proposing that the entirety of the first phase (downtown tunnel to the airport) be double-tracked? What about the tunnel under Dow's Lake, do you think it can remain as a single track?

Yes, all double tracked, as single tracking under Dow's lake will give a headway of about 6 minutes. This won't be enough in the next few years. Why not do something right now right, I'm tired of things always pushed back that cost 10x more in the future.

The Lausanne M2 Metro is automatic, and has a tunnel which is singe tracked. It's feasible, but much more of a hassle than the cost involved.

The potential from the Airport is really good, people don't use the bus because it's awkward and shakes too much with luggage. The blue 22 project in Toronto shows that, even with low bus usage (actually, the 192 is far under utilised), there is a market for trains.

[BlackRedGold]

The potential from the Airport is really good, people don't use the bus because it's awkward and shakes too much with luggage. The blue 22 project in Toronto shows that, even with low bus usage (actually, the 192 is far under utilised), there is a market for trains.

I don't see how a successful transit route in Toronto can be used to demonstrate anything for Ottawa. Toronto's airport is a lot further from downtown then Ottawa's, with far more expensive parking and a lot more traffic.

[d_jeffrey]

I don't see how a successful transit route in Toronto can be used to demonstrate anything for Ottawa. Toronto's airport is a lot further from downtown then Ottawa's, with far more expensive parking and a lot more traffic.

That people don't use buses in both, but would for trains? Each time I take the 192 in TO, I'm surprised there's only one or two people. It's Canada's busiest airport, and no one takes transit by bus.

[jeremy_haak]

That people don't use buses in both, but would for trains? Each time I take the 192 in TO, I'm surprised there's only one or two people. It's Canada's busiest airport, and no one takes transit by bus.

The airport may be one of the last places I'd consider going to on transit. Don't get me wrong, I've done it many times, and it was never convenient. I can't imagine LRT would be any more convenient than a regular bus. The big difference between something like Blue22 is that (I believe) it will have dedicate places for passenger baggage so they don't have to figure out where to put their baggage.

[d_jeffrey]

The airport may be one of the last places I'd consider going to on transit. Don't get me wrong, I've done it many times, and it was never convenient. I can't imagine LRT would be any more convenient than a regular bus. The big difference between something like Blue22 is that (I believe) it will have dedicate places for passenger baggage so they don't have to figure out where to put their baggage.

If it's like anything in European cities, there are sections for luggage/bikes in the cars. Not so much in buses. For me I hate taking luggage on the bus, because of the acceleration, braking, turns, ect. It's not convenient at all. On the subway, it affects less. It would also be convienient for government employees, since they're supposed to use rapid transit when available, and not taxis.

[O-Town Hockey]

The airport may be one of the last places I'd consider going to on transit. Don't get me wrong, I've done it many times, and it was never convenient. I can't imagine LRT would be any more convenient than a regular bus. The big difference between something like Blue22 is that (I believe) it will have dedicate places for passenger baggage so they don't have to figure out where to put their baggage.

It's hard to explain why, but I know tons more people would take the train from the airport to their hotels or business meetings downtown than currently take the bus. There is just something about a train that seems more direct. For me, I have taken the 97 many times, but that is because I realize that Ottawa has an efficient, grade-sepparated BRT system. Just imagine arriving from London or New York and someone telling you to take a bus from the airport to downtown, it just wouldn't sound that appealing. A train to the airport doesn't just mean a few extra riders; it gives the city some credibility, an O'Brien'esque "swagger", that can't be duplicated with any other mode of transportation. It can't be forgotten that our aiport is one of the busiest in the country and growing significantly every year. Let's do this right.

[Aylmer]

Sorry to all supporters but I think the MetrO plan is a tad bit to ambitious:shrug:


(This coming from the guy who dreams of a Trump tower in the region:koko: ...)

I do not understand why we NEED to convert all the transitway...
we can all survive with both (except the line to Orleans... that must be converted...)

[d_jeffrey]

Sorry to all supporters but I think the MetrO plan is a tad bit to ambitious:shrug:


(This coming from the guy who dreams of a Trump tower in the region:koko: ...)

I do not understand why we NEED to convert all the transitway...
we can all survive with both (except the line to Orleans... that must be converted...)

We can survive without a new bridge too, we can also survive without highways, and roads, and we can also survive without electricity.

The most economical way to reach Kanata and Orleans through denser areas is through the Transitway (besides a commuter train). Like the Transitway guy mentionned in his presentation, it's about 15M$ a km (let's say even 20M$ a km) to put LRT. If we have a rail tunnel (which is half the cost of a bus tunnel), there is enough money for conversion, which will allow for more direct service. The problem with starting downtown, is the available ROWs are already used by the Transitway. We could dig up tunnels parralel to the Transitway, but would that be cost effective? Also, BRT didn't improve the TOD, something that can be done with LRT.

Yes it is ambitious, but no more than the Mayor's task force plan, and definitely less than the moving 2020 plan from the Province of Ontario.

[the capital urbanite]

The potential from the Airport is really good...

the numbers (current and forecasted) simply don't support the notion of good ridership potential...unless the private sector can come up with the money I believe that immediate construction of an airport spur is unnecessary.

...people don't use the bus because it's awkward and shakes too much with luggage.

...that's just absurd....people don't use the bus from/to the airport because:
1) people get picked up (in cars) by friends/family
2) hotel limo shuttles offer cheap, fast and comfortable transportation
3) taxis are still a relatively cheap option for frequent flyers since the airport is only 20 minutes from downtown.

...the only reason why you'd take the bus/train to the airport is:
1) you work there
2) you're cheap
3) you're poor (caveat: if you were really poor you probably wouldn't be flying)

...I'm cheap so I take the bus to/from the airport...no matter what time of day, when I travel between South Keys and the airport I can count the number of people on the bus on my hand....and the actual ridership numbers support this claim.

[the capital urbanite]

It would also be convienient for government employees, since they're supposed to use rapid transit when available, and not taxis.

...I can guarantee that gov. employees are going to opt for the free taxi no matter how rapid or comfortable public transit is (until the day that traffic to the airport truly affects commuting time).

[the capital urbanite]

It's hard to explain why, but I know tons more people would take the train from the airport to their hotels or business meetings downtown than currently take the bus. There is just something about a train that seems more direct. For me, I have taken the 97 many times, but that is because I realize that Ottawa has an efficient, grade-sepparated BRT system. Just imagine arriving from London or New York and someone telling you to take a bus from the airport to downtown, it just wouldn't sound that appealing. A train to the airport doesn't just mean a few extra riders; it gives the city some credibility, an O'Brien'esque "swagger", that can't be duplicated with any other mode of transportation. It can't be forgotten that our aiport is one of the busiest in the country and growing significantly every year. Let's do this right.

I agree, but let the business sector pay for it...not my dollars thank you.

[d_jeffrey]

the numbers (current and forecasted) simply don't support the notion of good ridership potential...unless the private sector can come up with the money I believe that immediate construction of an airport spur is unnecessary.



...that's just absurd....people don't use the bus from/to the airport because:
1) people get picked up (in cars) by friends/family
2) hotel limo shuttles offer cheap, fast and comfortable transportation
3) taxis are still a relatively cheap option for frequent flyers since the airport is only 20 minutes from downtown.

...the only reason why you'd take the bus/train to the airport is:
1) you work there
2) you're cheap
3) you're poor (caveat: if you were really poor you probably wouldn't be flying)

...I'm cheap so I take the bus to/from the airport...no matter what time of day, when I travel between South Keys and the airport I can count the number of people on the bus on my hand....and the actual ridership numbers support this claim.


I'm not all of the above. As proven in London with the new Heathrow extension, rideshership is high, even moreso that they're building a new subway section just for the airport. Also remember that they have high speed rail service between dt and Heathrow there, and the subway is still used much.

The reason why I hate to take the bus, is for the acceleration that sends my luggage all over the place. In the end, you're saying that all other cities that linked their airport to their transit have made a mistake?

[Aylmer]

did you know that the airport is refusing a spur because they think they will lose parking money?

my cat is smarter!

[harls]

I've taken the bus once to the airport, for a 3 day business trip when I had just one carry on bag. I left straight from work in the middle of the afternoon. It was quick and efficient. Even though my work would expense a taxi, I thought it would be interesting to see just how efficient it was to get to the airport for 3 bucks, and surprisingly it was.

However, if I were going on vacation with extra luggage, leaving from home with my wife and 3 month-old kid in tow, there is no way I'd take transit... Depending on the length of the trip, I calculate how much a taxi ride to and from the airport would cost versus driving my own car to the airport parking garage. It usually costs me $30 bucks each way, so if long term parking is over $60, I'll take the taxi.. if not, I'm driving.

If a direct transit link to the airport was within a 10 minute walk from my house, maybe I'd consider it...

[the capital urbanite]

In the end, you're saying that all other cities that linked their airport to their transit have made a mistake?

I support a rail link to the airport but only if it improves service and increases ridership (relative to the current bus service). Ottawa simply doesn't have the population or traffic chaos (London, New York) that would necessitate an improved airport public transit service. Unlike other large urban centres, parking at or near the Ottawa airport is relatively cheap, and it's quick to get to the airport by car/taxi. That ease of access will inevitably change as Riverside South expands and/or areas of the Greenbelt near the airport are re-developed...increasing demand for adequate public transit access.

(keep in mind tat we already have an efficient rapid transit link to the airport....you can get from the Rideau Centre to the airport in under 30 minutes at any time of day!).

It's not a matter of "if" an airport rail link should be built, it's "when"....I believe that would be at least 20 years from now. Build the "core" LRT system first, then we can extend it to the airport.

I think we should look towards Seattle and see how their LRT link to the airport pans out (also Seattle is a model of why you shouldn't build a bus tunnel that "can" be converted to LRT in the "distant" future...but that's a different rant).

It will be in service in 2009 and the distance from downtown to the airport is about the same as in Ottawa. The current bus service from downtown to the airport also takes 30 minutes.

[lrt's friend]

Let's face it. An airport link will be mainly for tourists and out of town business travellers going to a downtown hotel. Locals will mostly not use it since most will not live within walking distance of the LRT route and it will simply be too much of a hassle when dealing with luggage if you have to also use a bus.

If prestige is our main motivation for building LRT, then build the airport connection as our top priority. If getting commuters out of their cars is our main concern, the airport link should not be our top priority. I will take the latter. Of course, if we have an extra $50M lying around, we could do both. Not likely.

Any LRT plan that includes an airport link but does not go directly downtown is not worth the paper it is printed on. The worst of both worlds. Not convenient for most locals and not convenient for visitors. So forget those plans calling for an O-Train from the airport to the casino. It will be a useless waste of money. At least the current Transitway service goes downtown.

[d_jeffrey]

Kitchissippi or any other good designer. Can you guys help out with the Ottawa Transit website? I would like to post a link to the tunnel digging campaing too, and write something for it.

It's kinda embarrassing now to have people asking me questions and everything, and it's still the same website. My friends and I are not really artistic.

[Kitchissippi]

What sort of help do you need? If it's punching up graphics or doing diagrams and maps, I'll be OK -- but I really suck at doing web pages.

[d_jeffrey]

What sort of help do you need? If it's punching up graphics or doing diagrams and maps, I'll be OK -- but I really suck at doing web pages.

Well whatever, haha, I'm good at programming and such, but don't have any design sense. If you have any ideas, bring them forward :)

[Franky]

I like where this idea is going - electric, underground, automated.

What if your MetrO proposal used small personal vehicles instead? Instead of trying to get a bunch of people into a large vehicle, then stopping the vehicle at every stop to let others on or off, why not allow each person/party use of a vehicle that stops only once it reaches it's destination. No stopping, no transfers, no wasted time.

This presentation includes Ottawa specific ideas:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfbfrhxh_23d8697pd4 (http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfbfrhxh_23d8697pd4)

[d_jeffrey]

I like where this idea is going - electric, underground, automated.

What if your MetrO proposal used small personal vehicles instead? Instead of trying to get a bunch of people into a large vehicle, then stopping the vehicle at every stop to let others on or off, why not allow each person/party use of a vehicle that stops only once it reaches it's destination. No stopping, no transfers, no wasted time.

This presentation includes Ottawa specific ideas:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...hxh_23d8697pd4 (http://docs.google.com/Presentation?...hxh_23d8697pd4)

Because PRT is an enormous waste of time by itself. To have a specific stop for each vehicle would mean 2-3 persons average for each destination. That means an automated highway system that would need 50 lanes because of the traffic it would bring. You see what is hapening right now with buses in Ottawa? That's because of too many vehicles. Too many vehicles at a capacity of 50/75 each. How can a system work with 1-3 person in each vehicle, and where those vehicles would be park, I have no idea.

What PRT is it's automated cars. People need to spend quality time on transit, or they can work closer to their home. Having a asocial transporation system (cars) was one of the first mistake. It transformed people into robotic freaks which can't stand each other. The soccer mom syndrome is something that needs to be abolished.

BTW, your link is not working.

EDIT: It now worked in your signature. "Though a Personal Automated Transit system could likely be built for less than a Light Rail system, it would make sense to spread the development costs and numerous benefits over a greater number of cities." How so? And nothing personal here, but I'm getting fed up with the common sense here. Post facts and numbers, sense is a subjective term used to try to impress people. (even if I use it). Basically, what you are proposing is an automated highway system.

[Franky]

Because PRT is an enormous waste of time by itself. To have a specific stop for each vehicle would mean 2-3 persons average for each destination. That means an automated highway system that would need 50 lanes because of the traffic it would bring. You see what is hapening right now with buses in Ottawa? That's because of too many vehicles. Too many vehicles at a capacity of 50/75 each. How can a system work with 1-3 person in each vehicle, and where those vehicles would be park, I have no idea.


The proposal would use the same Rights of Way as your proposal and carry the same number of passengers even at 1.2 per vehicle. This is accomplished by platooning vehicles and making them small enough that 4 fit in a regular vehicle lane where needed.


What PRT is it's automated cars. People need to spend quality time on transit, or they can work closer to their home. Having a asocial transporation system (cars) was one of the first mistake. It transformed people into robotic freaks which can't stand each other. The soccer mom syndrome is something that needs to be abolished.

BTW, your link is not working.

It's interesting that you are promoting a transportation system, not on it's merits, but as though it were a religion.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

[Franky]

EDIT: It now worked in your signature. "Though a Personal Automated Transit system could likely be built for less than a Light Rail system, it would make sense to spread the development costs and numerous benefits over a greater number of cities." How so? And nothing personal here, but I'm getting fed up with the common sense here. Post facts and numbers, sense is a subjective term used to try to impress people. (even if I use it). Basically, what you are proposing is an automated highway system.

I fixed the link thanks.

It's not a AHS because it's feasible today, it's electrified, it's safe (not mixed with other traffic) and it uses smaller vehicles, no SUV sized vehicles.

R&D on vehicles and guideways costs about the same whether the system is built for Ottawa or for the whole corridor.

[Aylmer]

I did it, and only 5 posts late!

Welcome to SSP!!!

:5::D :cheers: :notacrook: :worship: :banana: :drunk: :banger: :crazy2: :leek: :thrasher: :dancing: :upload_71700: :hug: :banaride: :kiss: :grouphug: :happypunk: :cucumber: :apple: :ahhh:

:)

[Franky]

Thanks!

[jeremy_haak]

I like where this idea is going - electric, underground, automated.

What if your MetrO proposal used small personal vehicles instead? Instead of trying to get a bunch of people into a large vehicle, then stopping the vehicle at every stop to let others on or off, why not allow each person/party use of a vehicle that stops only once it reaches it's destination. No stopping, no transfers, no wasted time.

This presentation includes Ottawa specific ideas:
http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfbfrhxh_23d8697pd4 (http://docs.google.com/Presentation?id=dfbfrhxh_23d8697pd4)

There are a few problems I have with PRT as an option:

1. It's unproven - the only examples have only been on small scales. This often leads to...

2. History of cost over-runs - past implementations have encountered significant cost over-runs, mainly due to issues related to technology. Implementing this in Ottawa would almost certainly also have this problem.

3. Capacity - even using your idea for cramming essentially four separate guideways into a single traffic lane to quadruple the capacity, the real capacity for such a system wouldn't even exceed the current capacity of BRT. Even if the theoretical limit were reached (pretty much unfathomable), the capacity would still be insufficient for long-term use.

4. Regulation - the extremely short headways that would be required would not be permitted under current railway regulations.

5. Land-use - this would reenforce auto-centric development.

I'm sure there are more problems, but that's a start for my concerns. That said, kudos for taking the time to work on it. Even if I disagree with your ideas, I still admire your effort.

[Franky]

There are a few problems I have with PRT as an option:

1. It's unproven - the only examples have only been on small scales. This often leads to...

True, though the benefits are considerable.

2. History of cost over-runs - past implementations have encountered significant cost over-runs, mainly due to issues related to technology. Implementing this in Ottawa would almost certainly also have this problem.

Our transitway was supposed to cost less than $100 million but came in at over $400 million. Cost over-runs seem common in transit systems, yet we are still building more.


3. Capacity - even using your idea for cramming essentially four separate guideways into a single traffic lane to quadruple the capacity, the real capacity for such a system wouldn't even exceed the current capacity of BRT. Even if the theoretical limit were reached (pretty much unfathomable), the capacity would still be insufficient for long-term use.

In a worst-case scenario, all vehicles could be packed and operated as a bus-type of system at peak hours bringing capacity up to 50,000 pphpd from somewhere near 15,000 pphpd. 15,000 pphpd is what is expected by 2030 in Ottawa. Reversing lanes to accomodate asymmetrical flow is simpler with an automated guideway based system, which would bring capacity above 20,000 pphpd.


4. Regulation - the extremely short headways that would be required would not be permitted under current railway regulations.

It's a "virtual hitch" the very small distance between vehicles (in platoons) is maintained by synchronous electric motors and the headways between platoons meet "brickwall" stopping rules.


5. Land-use - this would reenforce auto-centric development.

It would give choices. Auto centric communities can work with this system, but so can walkable and bikeable communities. Auto centric with small all-electric vehicles are better than SUV centricity - some people will never give up their cars. Walkable and bikeable communities are enabled by having rapid transportation available 24/7 alleviating the need for automobiles, especially in urban areas.


I'm sure there are more problems, but that's a start for my concerns. That said, kudos for taking the time to work on it. Even if I disagree with your ideas, I still admire your effort.

Thanks for looking at it. Having an open mind and a willingness to discuss (new) ideas is quite rare.

[d_jeffrey]

In a worst-case scenario, all vehicles could be packed and operated as a bus-type of system at peak hours bringing capacity up to 50,000 pphpd from somewhere near 15,000 pphpd. 15,000 pphpd is what is expected by 2030 in Ottawa. Reversing lanes to accomodate asymmetrical flow is simpler with an automated guideway based system, which would bring capacity above 20,000 pphpd.

No, since your vehicles need to stop, you need huge stations to accomodate the vehicles, this adds to the headways problem, let's say that your platforms have room for 10 of your PRT vehicles. This is only for 50 people at best. To disembark, you need 20 seconds. So your total capacity for this system is 9000pph. In the worst case, it is 1 person per PRT vehicle, and that makes about 1800pph.

If you had many "lanes" for stopping at your station, you need to accomodate that through tunneling. Also, where do you put the idle vehicles for maintenance? They don't disappear magically.


A PRT system is like an amusement park ride, where everyone must wait for their vehicles. To reduce the wait times, you build new lines. These new lines costs the same as the original lines. So in the end, a metro system is the best value per passenger and for capacity.


It's a "virtual hitch" the very small distance between vehicles (in platoons) is maintained by synchronous electric motors and the headways between platoons meet "brickwall" stopping rules.

It would give choices. Auto centric communities can work with this system, but so can walkable and bikeable communities. Auto centric with small all-electric vehicles are better than SUV centricity - some people will never give up their cars. Walkable and bikeable communities are enabled by having rapid transportation available 24/7 alleviating the need for automobiles, especially in urban areas.

Auto centric is bad in any case, smoking light cigarettes is still smoking. Sure it will give better conscience to people to drive a Smart, but they are still part of the problem. This is the yuppie attitude from Lululemon and Starbucks, where people think they are doing the best things, but are slaves to social phenomenon.


Thanks for looking at it. Having an open mind and a willingness to discuss (new) ideas is quite rare.

Everyone here are numbers freaks and will tell you in every details why your solution is not working. The tip is to provide concrete numbers and proofs of what you are talking about. If you believe in your ideas, you can make them happen, but you need to prove them first. I still haven't seen any of them for your PRT system.

You are saying 50000pph, prove me how. Stations design, maintenance facilities, lines to be done, headways.

[Franky]

No, since your vehicles need to stop, you need huge stations to accomodate the vehicles, this adds to the headways problem, let's say that your platforms have room for 10 of your PRT vehicles. This is only for 50 people at best. To disembark, you need 20 seconds. So your total capacity for this system is 9000pph. In the worst case, it is 1 person per PRT vehicle, and that makes about 1800pph.

No, you're thinking in rail terms - large stations every few km, and a single line. This system has small off-line stations so that vehicles that don't need to stop, keep right on going. There would probably be only 3 or 4 berth per station and ridership will dictate how close together they are.

If you had many "lanes" for stopping at your station, you need to accomodate that through tunneling. Also, where do you put the idle vehicles for maintenance? They don't disappear magically.

Vehicles are smaller, so "extra" tunneling for a station will be a fraction of what a train station would be. Smaller vehicles mean smaller tunnels too.
Storage areas would be designed along guideways near stations and some parking areas (like park and ride lots) can be used to store vehicles at night.

A PRT system is like an amusement park ride, where everyone must wait for their vehicles. To reduce the wait times, you build new lines. These new lines costs the same as the original lines. So in the end, a metro system is the best value per passenger and for capacity.

There are some serious assumptions here... First, it's not a traditional PRT system, it's better. Second, it will be designed to handle demand. Third people pay full price for amusement rides and operators make a profit, taxpayers are forking over a dollar for every dollar that goes into the transit fare-box. So in the end, people will still want to drive their cars if we insist on packing large numbers of people into large moving boxes.


Auto centric is bad in any case, smoking light cigarettes is still smoking. Sure it will give better conscience to people to drive a Smart, but they are still part of the problem. This is the yuppie attitude from Lululemon and Starbucks, where people think they are doing the best things, but are slaves to social phenomenon.

Why is it bad? PAT is electric and can be sustainable, it doesn't require parking, it relieves traffic congestion and reduces accidents. It will actually use about the same amount of energy per passenger km as rail transit because vehicles don't have to stop and don't run empty as much.


Everyone here are numbers freaks and will tell you in every details why your solution is not working. The tip is to provide concrete numbers and proofs of what you are talking about. If you believe in your ideas, you can make them happen, but you need to prove them first. I still haven't seen any of them for your PRT system.

I'm still working on a more detailed document than the introductory presentation. Any numbers in particular you would like?


You are saying 50000pph, prove me how. Stations design, maintenance facilities, lines to be done, headways.


60km/h
1.83s headway
4 m vehicle length
2 vehicles per platoon (0.3 m spacing)
5 passengers per vehicles average (holds 6)
1546.93 vehicles per hour
15469.28 passenger per hour
65.6 vehicles per km
30.49 m emergency stop (0.75g deceleration, 12 m/s^3 jerk, 0.15s reaction time)
55.56 m Acceleration distance at 2.5m/s^2 (.25g)

4 lanes means 61,877.12 passenger per hour per direction.
I gave a conservative number of 50,000, about 80% of the max.
In a transit system, it is likely a particular corridor (Hurdman to Rideau Centre in Ottawa) will be the choke point. The system can maximize throughput along that corridor at an efficiency expense of other less heavily used parts of the system. Complete computer control allows some optimizations that would be otherwise impractical.

Better numbers will cost money, I would need input data for ridership demand.

[d_jeffrey]

60km/h
1.83s headway
4 m vehicle length
2 vehicles per platoon (0.3 m spacing)
5 passengers per vehicles average (holds 6)
1546.93 vehicles per hour
15469.28 passenger per hour
65.6 vehicles per km
30.49 m emergency stop (0.75g deceleration, 12 m/s^3 jerk, 0.15s reaction time)
55.56 m Acceleration distance at 2.5m/s^2 (.25g)

4 lanes means 61,877.12 passenger per hour per direction.
I gave a conservative number of 50,000, about 80% of the max.
In a transit system, it is likely a particular corridor (Hurdman to Rideau Centre in Ottawa) will be the choke point. The system can maximize throughput along that corridor at an efficiency expense of other less heavily used parts of the system. Complete computer control allows some optimizations that would be otherwise impractical.

Better numbers will cost money, I would need input data for ridership demand.


You can't have a 1.83s headway, that means it would take that for a car to either empty its passengers, or to turn around. Lower than 15 seconds, you are getting major system issues. Take in consideration about someone with a stroller to get out. 1 minute, and you're entire system is screwed. Your 4 lanes also is twice the cost of a comparable subway system. And why are you saying it doesn't require parking? You have to put these vehicles somewhere!

And about auto-centricity, it's bad because of the social issues. Enviromental issues are not only about transports, it's more than that. Suburbans are fatter ect.

[jeremy_haak]

60km/h
1.83s headway
4 m vehicle length
2 vehicles per platoon (0.3 m spacing)
5 passengers per vehicles average (holds 6)
1546.93 vehicles per hour
15469.28 passenger per hour
65.6 vehicles per km
30.49 m emergency stop (0.75g deceleration, 12 m/s^3 jerk, 0.15s reaction time)
55.56 m Acceleration distance at 2.5m/s^2 (.25g)

4 lanes means 61,877.12 passenger per hour per direction.
I gave a conservative number of 50,000, about 80% of the max.
In a transit system, it is likely a particular corridor (Hurdman to Rideau Centre in Ottawa) will be the choke point. The system can maximize throughput along that corridor at an efficiency expense of other less heavily used parts of the system. Complete computer control allows some optimizations that would be otherwise impractical.

Better numbers will cost money, I would need input data for ridership demand.

I'm not buying it. I've looked at numbers for PRT myself, and your figures are so wildly beyond what is feasible now, that it is unfathomable that Ottawa could implement something approaching those figures. Honestly. Average 5 pass/vehicle? All with the same origin and destination at the exact same time? Especially when there are as many origins and destinations as a system such as you are proposing would have, planning for loads like that is ridiculous.

[Franky]

You can't have a 1.83s headway, that means it would take that for a car to either empty its passengers, or to turn around. Lower than 15 seconds, you are getting major system issues. Take in consideration about someone with a stroller to get out. 1 minute, and you're entire system is screwed. Your 4 lanes also is twice the cost of a comparable subway system. And why are you saying it doesn't require parking? You have to put these vehicles somewhere!


The berths are not in a row, they are like parking spaces.


___________________________________________________________
\__________________________________________________________/__
--------------- /+/ /+/ /+/ /+/ -------------------------------------------
|/+/ /+/ /+/ /+/ |
| |


So if one berth stalls, the others don't.
How do you figure 4 lanes cost twice as much as rail?
It doesn't require downtown parking. Vehicles are reused, so they don't need to be parked downtown.


And about auto-centricity, it's bad because of the social issues. Enviromental issues are not only about transports, it's more than that. Suburbans are fatter ect.
"fatter"? So now transit is a diet? What did you mean?

[Franky]

I'm not buying it. I've looked at numbers for PRT myself, and your figures are so wildly beyond what is feasible now, that it is unfathomable that Ottawa could implement something approaching those figures. Honestly. Average 5 pass/vehicle? All with the same origin and destination at the exact same time? Especially when there are as many origins and destinations as a system such as you are proposing would have, planning for loads like that is ridiculous.

No, this is for "bus mode" which is a contingency, stadium emptying, sudden surge that would require evacuation of an area, etc. The "normal" numbers are up to 15,000 pphpd, probably less, but possible if restricted to a particular (single) choke point like Ottawa's Hurdman to Rideau-Centre corridor.

[d_jeffrey]

The berths are not in a row, they are like parking spaces.


___________________________________________________________
\__________________________________________________________/__
--------------- /+/ /+/ /+/ /+/ -------------------------------------------
|/+/ /+/ /+/ /+/ |
| |


So if one berth stalls, the others don't.
How do you figure 4 lanes cost twice as much as rail?
It doesn't require downtown parking. Vehicles are reused, so they don't need to be parked downtown.


"fatter"? So now transit is a diet? What did you mean?

Just look at your diagram, you have 8 spots for 15 seconds each, loading and unloading passengers. This means you can't have another car when unloading because that spot is taken. Assuming for 6 passengers per car, you have a capacity of 11 500, and that's for your BEST scenario. Let's take the average person/car ratio for a normal car, which have the same destination, which is 1.8, and a more respectable unloading of 20 seconds. You now have a capacity of 2592 for your station.

You need 4 set of rails, like you proposed, because the "express" routing would be faster, and the "local" service for which the cars would stop at their platforms. There is nothing like instant rail switching, you would need 5 seconds at least between cars to be secure, even if it's on pneumatics like the Montréal metro, you cars automatic guide needs to be secured.

An average downtown transit station has, on an afternoon, about 4000 people boarding a bus, in an hour. The system you proposed would take in the best case, 20 minutes to board everyone. And that doesn't count the line up of cars that would want to stop at that station, you just created a huge back up on your rail system..

I didn't say downtown parking, I said parking. You have added thousands of vehicles to the system, which need maintenance ect. The double costs is for infrastructure too, you double your electricity poles, rails ect., it's not just the width of the tunnel, but the costs involved of building things.

As for the fatter, I refered to people living in a car-oriented city to be fatter than the urban dweller. So that's why we should be distancing ourselves from the suburb-centric living enviromnent, it has a social cost too.

[Franky]

Just look at your diagram, you have 8 spots for 15 seconds each, loading and unloading passengers. This means you can't have another car when unloading because that spot is taken. Assuming for 6 passengers per car, you have a capacity of 11 500, and that's for your BEST scenario. Let's take the average person/car ratio for a normal car, which have the same destination, which is 1.8, and a more respectable unloading of 20 seconds. You now have a capacity of 2592 for your station.

It's worse than that. This station design has 4 spots and is built into the intersection of a street. I figured that with this design, which doesn't require any stations on private property, there would have to be stations on both sides of the street (bringing the count back up to 8) and at every block. If this capacity is insufficient because of high-rises or something, stations on private property will be needed.

Each berth can serve 180 vehicles per hour at 20 s boarding, so 216 passenger per hour per berth in "PRT" mode and 900 passenger per hour per berth in "bus mode".

I don't have access to statistics for ridership at each corner, so I can't guess as to how many berths will be needed.


You need 4 set of rails, like you proposed, because the "express" routing would be faster, and the "local" service for which the cars would stop at their platforms. There is nothing like instant rail switching, you would need 5 seconds at least between cars to be secure, even if it's on pneumatics like the Montréal metro, you cars automatic guide needs to be secured.

This part still needs some engineering, but a gear-like lock between the vehicle and the side of the guideway are needed. The synchronous motors then guarantee spacing so that less than 5 second switching is not only possible, but required. There is an expired patent on this aspect.


An average downtown transit station has, on an afternoon, about 4000 people boarding a bus, in an hour. The system you proposed would take in the best case, 20 minutes to board everyone. And that doesn't count the line up of cars that would want to stop at that station, you just created a huge back up on your rail system..

Obviously, such a poor system would not be designed. The number of berths has to matched to expected capacity.



I didn't say downtown parking, I said parking. You have added thousands of vehicles to the system, which need maintenance ect. The double costs is for infrastructure too, you double your electricity poles, rails ect., it's not just the width of the tunnel, but the costs involved of building things.

Yes, some parking is needed. Buses need parking too and so do automobiles. I suppose rail vehicles can just sit on the track?
The electric conduit is built into the guideway, it's not an overhead wire system. This sort of system would likely not be acceptable for Ottawa. It's the (official) reason the trolley bus system was removed (I think).

How much smaller are train tunnels compared to road tunnels?



As for the fatter, I refered to people living in a car-oriented city to be fatter than the urban dweller. So that's why we should be distancing ourselves from the suburb-centric living enviromnent, it has a social cost too.

I thought you were kidding or that I had misunderstood. So you want to use transit to impose a lifestyle choice and you see that as an asset. You will need to pay people to use your system. Why not just decree that fat people are now illegal then go ahead and build a decent transit system?

[d_jeffrey]

It's worse than that. This station design has 4 spots and is built into the intersection of a street. I figured that with this design, which doesn't require any stations on private property, there would have to be stations on both sides of the street (bringing the count back up to 8) and at every block. If this capacity is insufficient because of high-rises or something, stations on private property will be needed.

Each berth can serve 180 vehicles per hour at 20 s boarding, so 216 passenger per hour per berth in "PRT" mode and 900 passenger per hour per berth in "bus mode".

I don't have access to statistics for ridership at each corner, so I can't guess as to how many berths will be needed.


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.


This part still needs some engineering, but a gear-like lock between the vehicle and the side of the guideway are needed. The synchronous motors then guarantee spacing so that less than 5 second switching is not only possible, but required. There is an expired patent on this aspect.

Obviously, such a poor system would not be designed. The number of berths has to matched to expected capacity.

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


Yes, some parking is needed. Buses need parking too and so do automobiles. I suppose rail vehicles can just sit on the track?
The electric conduit is built into the guideway, it's not an overhead wire system. This sort of system would likely not be acceptable for Ottawa. It's the (official) reason the trolley bus system was removed (I think).

How much smaller are train tunnels compared to road tunnels?

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


I thought you were kidding or that I had misunderstood. So you want to use transit to impose a lifestyle choice and you see that as an asset. You will need to pay people to use your system. Why not just decree that fat people are now illegal then go ahead and build a decent transit system?
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.

[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:

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/bdtravels/2007/05-24-2007/Smartcarvendingmachine.jpg

[Franky]

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.

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.


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

Something got cut off here...

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.

[d_jeffrey]

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. :rolleyes: 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]

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.


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.



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.


http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc285/bdtravels/2007/05-24-2007/Smartcarvendingmachine.jpg

[Franky]

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. :rolleyes: 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"?



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.


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.

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]

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]

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.


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...

[d_jeffrey]

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]

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.


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... :rolleyes:

[Franky]

Franky, you are VERY delusional... :rolleyes:

You a shrink? :D

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

You a shrink? :D

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

[Franky]

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

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?id=dfbfrhxh_23d8697pd4

[Jamaican-Phoenix]

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?id=dfbfrhxh_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]

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.


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.


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.


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.

[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.

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]

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!


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!

:koko:

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]

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.

[Justin10000]

So.. You want to maintain an auto-centric lifestyle, and force people into using automobiles.

This proposal just keeps on getting worse...

[Franky]

So.. You want to maintain an auto-centric lifestyle, and force people into using automobiles.

This proposal just keeps on getting worse...

That's just a flat out lie.

I said that the Personal Automated Transit proposal, being an automated public transit system with many of the qualities of automobiles, would make travel safer because without drivers, there are no drunk drivers.

[Justin10000]

Which brings us back to unsanitary PAT cars, which people will vandalize, and puke in. Maybe even urinate in, since they will be alone!

Or maybe your friend will pee in a PAT vehicle... Since he already peed in a bus..

[Aylmer]

Which brings us back to unsanitary PAT cars, which people will vandalize, and puke in. Maybe even urinate in, since they will be alone!

Or maybe your friend will pee in a PAT vehicle... Since he already peed in a bus..

That's stupid: Do YOU pee in your car?

:)

[jeremy_haak]

That's stupid: Do YOU pee in your car?

:)

I don't pee on war memorials or buses.

[Justin10000]

That's stupid: Do YOU pee in your car?

:)


Apparently Franky's friend does...

But let's be serious here.

I do not like talking about PAT, because quite frankly, it is possibly the dumbest idea I have heard. I am all for hearing about new ideas, and innovations in transit. But automating the car, and taking up more valuable space, and calling it a "bold new vision" is absurd. Granted, I think we will eventually reach the point, where our cars will be controlled by computers on some highways. We are not there yet, right now, rail-based transit, and smarter planning is our best answer.

[Franky]

Buses won't stop and wait for you to go pee - Personal Automated Transit will allow you make stops and a vehicle will be there waiting when you're done. Unlike with the last bus.

[jeremy_haak]

I think one of the biggest cases against PRT is that it will likely be outdated technology before it is even fully developed. The field of robotics is being rapidly developed, and this development also has direct implication for fully autonomous vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car#Fully_autonomous) in a disordered environment such as our roads. The costs of implementation of such a system would be marginal since it would be adopted incrementally by users on existing infrastructure. And cars wait for people to go pee too.

[Franky]

I think one of the biggest cases against PRT is that it will likely be outdated technology before it is even fully developed. The field of robotics is being rapidly developed, and this development also has direct implication for fully autonomous vehicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driverless_car#Fully_autonomous) in a disordered environment such as our roads. The costs of implementation of such a system would be marginal since it would be adopted incrementally by users on existing infrastructure. And cars wait for people to go pee too.

Well, the people who are serious about automated vehicles (on regular roads) say 20+ years away. My guess is that it will not be cheap at first - nothing is. So, the time to full-penetration of the market will be substantial. Also, automated vehicles don't solve the power "problem". Personal Automated Transit as proposed would mean electrically powered vehicles in every neighbourhood for anyone/everyone to use in a relatively brief delay.

[Cre47]

Is anyone still thinks about the metrO proposal - as it is the subject of this thread. I would love to have that although it might be too late for that but the transit plan is much better then our current system that's for sure. and especially more effective then PAT. Wish that he had our current population in 1975, because there would have be subway service in this city.

[Franky]

Is anyone still thinks about the metrO proposal - as it is the subject of this thread. I would love to have that although it might be too late for that but the transit plan is much better then our current system that's for sure. and especially more effective then PAT. Wish that he had our current population in 1975, because there would have be subway service in this city.

Metro + tunnel is the right solution when the number of people using transit merits it. It's still too soon. Why not build it now? 25 years of interest on the large capital that must be invested. In 25 years if things continue as projected and if Personal Automated Transit isn't implemented, we will need a tunnel and metro.

[Cre47]

Metro + tunnel is the right solution when the number of people using transit merits it. It's still too soon. Why not build it now? 25 years of interest on the large capital that must be invested. In 25 years if things continue as projected and if Personal Automated Transit isn't implemented, we will need a tunnel and metro.

PAT will have less ridership then our current system. 60 000 is way too optimistic figures, more 10 000 would be more realistic especially since 1) many people targeted by this goes from suburbs downtown which takes about 40-45 minutes 2) Many will go back to the suburbs empty thus 0 riders. 3)I could bet that many vehicules will have only 1 person on board. 4)People will just simply drive to work. Also, the city would have to add almost like thousands of new parking space downtown, something many of us wants to be reduced to shambles. If Ottawa has the 2017 EXPO, that PAT system will be failing even more.

Also I don't think it is too soon for a subway, since Montreal and Toronto had the same population then us right now when they built the subway. Heck I think Boston, MA had less population then us when they built there's in the 60s.

[Franky]

PAT will have less ridership then our current system. 60 000 is way too optimistic figures, more 10 000 would be more realistic

I believe I use 50,000 (5 per vehicle, bus like mode) and 15,000 (1.2 people per vehicle on average)

especially since 1) many people targeted by this goes from suburbs downtown which takes about 40-45 minutes

Why? At 80 to 120 km/h without stops it should be faster.

2) Many will go back to the suburbs empty thus 0 riders.

Just like buses except they are redeployed as soon as they drop someone off instead of completing the "route" which is more efficient.

Also, larger platoons are possible for return vehicles because no routing is required.

3)I could bet that many vehicules will have only 1 person on board.

Of course, that why 1.2 people per vehicle on average is used.

4)People will just simply drive to work. Also, the city would have to add almost like thousands of new parking space downtown, something many of us wants to be reduced to shambles. If Ottawa has the 2017 EXPO, that PAT system will be failing even more.

The beauty of the system is that you don't need a car for car-like service. You get dropped off downtown.

Also I don't think it is too soon for a subway, since Montreal and Toronto had the same population then us right now when they built the subway. Heck I think Boston, MA had less population then us when they built there's in the 60s.

Doesn't mean it was a good decision. Boston's Big Dig didn't go that well and our own digging for the transitway cost 4x what was expected because (in part?) of the geology in Ottawa.