daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 27th, 2008, 02:18 PM   #161
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
We did build a metro - we have higher capacity than much of the Paris metro. ...
Line 14 of the Paris Metro is fully automated. The trains have no drivers cabs. The trains have a walk-through design. The line has been engineered to ultimately operate 8-car trains at 85 second headways giving a capacity of about 40,000 passengers per hour per direction, which is about twice the ultimate capacity of Central Link.





There is little risk that anyone would ever confuse Central Link with the Paris Metro.
__________________

an-148 liked this post
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 29th, 2008, 06:06 AM   #162
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

I happen to spend a fair amount of the year in France, and line 14 is not representative of the Paris Metro. Most of the other lines have less than half that capacity - 70m platforms, five car trains, and very short wagons, for more like 18,000pphpd.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2008, 06:07 AM   #163
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by TransportEnthusiast View Post
Ben, I'm still waiting for a response to my analysis, which showed that your "100 billion dollars for PRT" claim could only be valid if real estate costs were of $10,000 per square foot.

It'd be nice if you'd inform us simplistic "PRT people" just exactly how Seattle real estate could be seven times more expensive than midtown Manhattan.

I am not "justifying" your extremely poor math.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2008, 01:55 PM   #164
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
We did build a metro - we have higher capacity than much of the Paris metro. We just call it light rail because we use light rail vehicles, and part of the first line runs at grade (in its own right of way) - we're going to use up to four car strings with 120 meter platforms. We tested the right of way design with a short line in downtown Tacoma starting five years ago, and have had no accidents that I'm aware of. The only interactions with motor vehicles are at a number of signaled crossings. I'm sure we'll have a few accidents, and then people will get used to it, just like they have every other system in the world. It won't have any effect after the first few months.

The future extensions of the system to the north and east (the big corridors) won't ever use the at-grade portion, so we can use metro headways through the central corridor (down to 2 minutes).

The urban core segment is tunneled, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
I happen to spend a fair amount of the year in France, and line 14 is not representative of the Paris Metro. Most of the other lines have less than half that capacity - 70m platforms, five car trains, and very short wagons, for more like 18,000pphpd.
Oh geez. Ben, please stop trying to convince people that our future light-rail has more capacity than a Paris metro..

* As others mentioned, our cars aren't walk-through, have driver cabs, and have uneven floor levels.
* Seattleites will never "do" crush loads on a regular basis. (Maybe game days...but that's about it)
* Stop cherry-picking the frequencies. The 2 minute frequencies you posted is a combination of different lines merging into the tunnel (and we're talking like, when? 2030?). That's like comparing the 4 Parisian lines (RER A, D, M1, 14) that are parallel between Gare de Lyon and Chatelet and saying, between them, they have 30 second frequencies of 1000-pax capacity trains.
* The busiest metro in Paris is line 13. With 5-car trains, they carry over 500,000 pax a day. Lines 1 and 14 carry more passengers than our entire Link system ever will.

You talk like it's year 2030 when everything's built out and the trains are 4-cars long. In reality, next year, we'll have a 2-car train running every 6-15 minutes. In 2016, it'll be every 4-6 minutes. Instead of comparing our system to Paris, you should be comparing it to Phoenix or Denver.
__________________

an-148 liked this post
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2008, 06:26 PM   #165
wonwiin
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 184
Likes (Received): 28

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
* As others mentioned, our cars aren't walk-through, have driver cabs, and have uneven floor levels.
And here I thought every modern light rail vehicle is walk-through and has an even and low floor level.
wonwiin no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2008, 06:43 PM   #166
TransportEnthusiast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 42
Likes (Received): 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
I am not "justifying" your extremely poor math.
If it truly was "extremely poor math", I'm sure you'd correct it rather than dismiss it. So I'll take that a grudging endorsement of my analysis.

Last edited by TransportEnthusiast; July 1st, 2008 at 01:31 AM. Reason: grammar
TransportEnthusiast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2008, 06:24 PM   #167
trainrover
:-x
 
trainrover's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,787
Likes (Received): 738

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
I am not "justifying" your extremely poor math.
Why not, 'Honourable' Arithmetician?

Vas-t'en!
trainrover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2008, 10:22 PM   #168
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

The family car of the future could offer many of the key features of PRT:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25571683/

Turning over the keys to the car ... to the car
Autos of the future — the near future — may be able to drive themselves

By David Kiley
updated 12:18 p.m. ET, Sun., July. 13, 2008

Imagine the scene: You're driving your car to an office building in New York City, five minutes from a job interview. No worries. You have already dialed into the car's memory the parking garage where it's going to stay, and prepaid the bill. You shut the door. And off it goes. Driverless. And the chances of the car getting into an accident while it travels five or six treacherous city blocks are less than if the hopeful job applicant had tried to park it himself under time pressure.

Does it sound too good to be true? A sign of the end of civilization as we know it? Too far into the future to care? It depends on whom you ask. But some researchers, engineers, and auto companies believe that such automation is not only on the way to becoming commonplace in the next 20 years, but essential to reducing the carbon footprint of vehicles from the U.S. to China and everywhere else. Oh, and as the technology necessary to achieve the "autonomous" car arrives in stages every few years — some of it is already here, in options such as electronic stability control and blind-spot detection — it promises to sharply reduce traffic fatalities.

'Better than humans'
That's why Nady Boules is so enthusiastic about the prospects of putting technology into vehicles that will change the way we drive and even think about personal transportation. He is director of General Motors' electrical and integration laboratory, and thus is at the center of the automaker's research into what technology is possible and how well consumers might embrace it. "All of this will be made possible and practical by use of computers, sensors, and radio transmitters, and I think we are coming to realize that they can operate a vehicle or even a plane better than humans can behind the wheel," says Boules.

For now, GM can claim bragging rights among automakers for advancing autonomous driving. Last November, a Chevy Tahoe nicknamed "Boss," engineered by a team drawn from GM, Continental Teves, Caterpillar, and Carnegie-Mellon University, beat out 85 other teams and entries for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, Urban Challenge. The Pentagon sponsored the competition to develop an autonomous fighting vehicle that will keep as many human war-fighters off the battlefield as possible. You have heard of "drone" fighter and intelligence-gathering planes? The DOD wants tanks and other vehicles that don't even need to be operated by remote control, let alone humans.

How do the vehicles work without even remote control? It takes a combination of technologies.

Electronic stability control: This technology, which now comes or will soon come standard in most vehicles, improves a vehicle's handling by detecting and preventing skids. When ESC detects loss of steering control, the system automatically applies individual brakes to help "steer" the vehicle where the driver wants to go. Braking is automatically applied to individual wheels, such as the outer front wheel to counter oversteer, or the inner rear wheel to counter understeer. Some ESC systems also reduce engine power until control is regained.

Adaptive cruise control: This is similar to standard cruise control in that it maintains the vehicle's preset speed. However, unlike conventional cruise control, ACC can automatically adjust speed in order to maintain a proper distance between vehicles in the same lane. This is achieved through a radar headway sensor, a digital signal processor, and a longitudinal controller. If the vehicle ahead of you slows down, or if another object is detected, the system sends a signal to the engine or braking system to decelerate. Then, when the road is clear, the system accelerates back to the set speed. GM's Cadillac models and Buick Lucerne now offer it as an option, as do Mercedes-Benz, Infiniti, and Lexus.

Blind-spot detection: This system — offered by Cadillac, Buick, Volvo, Mercedes, and other makes — watches the surroundings of the car with cameras, sensors, and radar, and lets the driver know by way of a light on the side-view mirror that a car is hovering in the blind spot.

Lane-departure warning: If the car drifts out of the lane, one system will vibrate the steering wheel, alerting the driver, who may be falling asleep. Another kind of system will also send a message to the steering wheel to steer back into the lane. This is expected to be available as early as 2011 as an option offered with other systems, such as adaptive cruise control.

Collision mitigation: This system, like one developed by Honda Motor and offered in Acura models, determines the likelihood of a collision based on driving conditions, distance to the vehicle ahead, and relative speeds. It uses visual and audio warnings to prompt the driver to take preventive action. It also initiates braking to reduce the vehicle's speed. When a collision is anticipated, the seatbelt retracts in anticipation of impact.

Each of these technologies can stand alone. But they're also designed to be added on to and integrated with one another over time, says GM's Boules. The "Boss" SUV was packed with thousands of dollars of advanced equipment and software that's not yet commercially available, such as an enhanced global positioning system, radar and sonar, and radio transmitters. On the test course it had to maneuver around vehicles driven by humans, as well as other driverless vehicles.

At a four-way stop with another autonomous vehicle, the Boss and its fellow "car-bot" communicated with one another, negotiating which would go first. "They are more polite than people," says Boules.

Price dampens consumer enthusiasm
Polite or not, people have to buy into these technologies if they're going to catch on. According to the recently completed Emerging Technologies Study, conducted each year by J.D. Power and Associates, there's a lot of interest in the individual systems that will make autonomous driving possible: 76 percent of those surveyed are interested in blind-spot detection; 74 percent want backup assist; 62 percent want a collision mitigation system; 60 percent want adaptive cruise control, and 46 percent want lane-departure warning. However, those percentages drop a bit when price tags are suggested for each system.

The $1,300 GM "Driver Awareness Package," offered on the Cadillac CTS and DTS and Buick Lucerne, includes lane-departure warning, blind-spot detection, and heads-up instrument-panel display. So far this year, 5 percent of CTS sedan buyers have opted for the package.

J.D. Power's Mike Marshall, who oversees the Power study, says drivers will need time to get used to turning more and more control of the car over to computers and sensors. "Even I held my foot over the brake for a while before I trusted adaptive cruise control to do it for me, and I know more than most about how this stuff works," says Marshall.

The bigger payoff in having drivers spend a few thousand dollars to embrace autonomous vehicles is the huge improvements they promise in safety and fuel economy. About 43,000 people a year are killed in traffic accidents, including motorcycle accidents and pedestrians hit by moving cars. If every car had electronic stability control, for instance, fatalities would drop by about 10,000, according to estimates by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. If all drivers wore safety belts (about 81 percent do today), another 7,000 lives would be saved.

"The number goes down with each system to the point where [fatalities] would be so few that when it happened, it would really be an oddity," says Boules.

Much lighter
How could car-bots that drive themselves be more energy efficient? Vehicles would be so safe that automakers could dramatically reduce the weight of cars and trucks by eliminating a lot of steel, bumpers, etc. Even airbags eventually could be eliminated. Much more of the vehicle could be made from plastics and other synthetics, even recycled paper and other cellulose-based material. With weight reduction comes fuel economy. A minivan that gets about 19 miles per gallon today could be made to weigh less than a Honda Fit, which gets more than 34 mpg. And the Fit could be lightened up enough to get 45 mpg or better.

Here is the kicker: Older people will have the greatest incentive to embrace the newest technology, a reversal of the usual trend with emerging technology. As baby boomers age into their 70s and 80s, living longer thanks to drugs, artificial joints, heart valves, and the like, they will want to continue driving as long as possible. The biggest beef against elderly drivers today is that their reflexes and eyesight deteriorate before their desire to drive their own cars.

With an autonomous car that can be driven safely on autopilot, it's the car's eyesight and reflexes that will matter more than the driver's.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2008, 08:39 PM   #169
Thorne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 0

steveraneyC21, I've read that Masdar City in Abu Dhabi will be buying 3,000 ULTra podcars.

What is the approximate price for one 6-passenger podcar with its' lithium ion battery as it sits on ATS' loading dock without any cost allocation buried in the price for the following: guideway cost, station cost, central computer system and software?
Thorne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2008, 11:09 PM   #170
apaoli
Registered User
 
apaoli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 187
Likes (Received): 3

HAPPY HOLIDAYS FROM VECTUS PRT

MUST SEE!!!!!!!
VECTUS
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=UpvujR...eature=related
http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=pnwlkBQbi4I

ULTRA: (come fare il culo alla leitner...lol)







Last edited by apaoli; December 20th, 2008 at 11:24 PM.
apaoli no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2008, 07:25 PM   #171
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Thank you for the update!
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2008, 10:50 PM   #172
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
Oh geez. Ben, please stop trying to convince people that our future light-rail has more capacity than a Paris metro..

* As others mentioned, our cars aren't walk-through, have driver cabs, and have uneven floor levels.
* Seattleites will never "do" crush loads on a regular basis. (Maybe game days...but that's about it)
* Stop cherry-picking the frequencies. The 2 minute frequencies you posted is a combination of different lines merging into the tunnel (and we're talking like, when? 2030?). That's like comparing the 4 Parisian lines (RER A, D, M1, 14) that are parallel between Gare de Lyon and Chatelet and saying, between them, they have 30 second frequencies of 1000-pax capacity trains.
* The busiest metro in Paris is line 13. With 5-car trains, they carry over 500,000 pax a day. Lines 1 and 14 carry more passengers than our entire Link system ever will.

You talk like it's year 2030 when everything's built out and the trains are 4-cars long. In reality, next year, we'll have a 2-car train running every 6-15 minutes. In 2016, it'll be every 4-6 minutes. Instead of comparing our system to Paris, you should be comparing it to Phoenix or Denver.
kub86... We can replace Link trains just as Paris has replaced Metro trains. Much of the Paris Metro isn't walk-through anyway. And 'the tunnel' is from Northgate to the International District, which is not exactly short.

In the timeframe in which we need it, this will be just as high capacity as SOME OF the Paris Metro lines. When you say 'a' Paris Metro, you're pretending they're all super high capacity, when I'm just pointing out that Link will have the capacity of some of them. 500,000 a day is reasonable for Link in 2050, when the city's grown up around it.

2030 is practically around the corner. 22 years isn't that long, especially not for a mass transit system like this.

The point is utterly lost here, though. We're in this semantic nonsense about Link versus Paris when the point is that viewed from the bottom of the PRT valley, both peaks are similar in height.
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2008, 07:00 AM   #173
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

UrbanBen, Every morning after getting out of bed, you need to repeat the following ten times:

Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 26th, 2008, 06:44 PM   #174
Andrew
Registered User
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 3,461
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by apaoli View Post






The rediculously over the top health and safety laws we have in this country really piss me off, just because the guideways are elevated they have to put stupid fences everywhere! So, even though the guideway itself is about as inconspicuous and lightweight as it's possible to make a structure like that, the stupid metal railings bolted to it make it look bloody awful. Ok, in this case it's in an airport, so it doesn't matter what it looks like. However, I'm sure this is one big reason why we're never likely to see elevated systems like this built above streets in UK city centres, because health and safety laws force these stupid fences to be put up just in case the thing breaks down and they need to evacuate people along the guideway. Well, I think it's absolute bullshit, the guideway is plenty wide enough for people to walk along without the need of railings to stop them falling off.
Andrew no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 11:29 AM   #175
Filip7370
Modern transit...
 
Filip7370's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Warsaw
Posts: 156
Likes (Received): 5

And whre are the benefits from this kind of transport, well the commute speed is low (the "boubbles" are moving slow), the cost of the infrastructure is high (it is nessesary to build the stations and totaly diffrent network of tracks), on ending the commute capability is also low, there should to be many, many, many vehicles to acive a capability as high as for example tram.
__________________
Faculty of Transport of Warsaw University of Technology (Warsaw Polytechnics).
Filip7370 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 07:06 PM   #176
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

The idea is to try to match the point-to-point convenience of the automobile by avoiding the need to transfer between lines and stop at intermediate stations. Without intermediate stops and transfers, the vehicle speed does not need to be as high to provide a reasonable travel time.

My own view is that the automobile is likely to evolve to offer many of the features of PRT including electric power and automated control. In the future, instead of driving to the airport parking lot and taking a bus, peoplemover, or PRT pod to the terminal, you might drive your car directly to the terminal and then issue commands for your car to drive itself to the parking lot. For more on this, see post #168 above.

Last edited by greg_christine; December 28th, 2008 at 07:20 PM.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 28th, 2008, 08:18 PM   #177
Thorne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 0

steveraneyC21, since no vehicles are allowed inside Masdar City, could you please post some photos showing how ATS has modified the ULTra electric podcar to serve the following specific functions: ambulance, fire truck, police car, armored truck, waste recycling truck and freight truck (e.g. to haul fruit and vegetables to the supermarket)?

Will your central computer system permit a tradesman to park his electric podcar (e.g. van or pickup truck) on a section of guideway so that he can do emergency repairs to utilities nearby with his specialized equipment and parts? If not, then please explain briefly how Masdar City's utilities are suppose to be repaired and maintained.
Thorne no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2008, 06:28 PM   #178
UrbanBen
the transit nazi
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 966
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
UrbanBen, Every morning after getting out of bed, you need to repeat the following ten times:

Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
Central Link is not a metro.
You really don't seem to realize that those naming conventions are arbitrary. When Link hits Northgate and Bellevue, the peak capacity in downtown will be higher than some metros.

When Paris first built its metro system, line 1 had 70m platforms - now extended to 90m. Our system starts with 120m. Was line 1 not a metro when it started? Link's capacity is higher than that was when it was built - and if we moved to entirely low-floor, walk-through vehicles in the future, it would be higher than line 1's capacity today.

I'm sure you'd like to think there are hard and fast distinctions here, but there are not. We've had the 'what's heavy, what's light, what's commuter' discussion in the past, and there are simply no lines between them. Link will be higher capacity through the central city than any other light rail system, and higher than some metros. Is that hard to understand?
UrbanBen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 31st, 2008, 09:38 PM   #179
deasine
=)
 
deasine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,452
Likes (Received): 57

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
You really don't seem to realize that those naming conventions are arbitrary. When Link hits Northgate and Bellevue, the peak capacity in downtown will be higher than some metros.
That doesn't make it a metro. The LRT classification is used to describe the technology of the route, not by its capacity.
deasine no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 1st, 2009, 03:03 AM   #180
greg_christine
Registered User
 
greg_christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Smithfield, VA
Posts: 1,008
Likes (Received): 142

Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanBen View Post
You really don't seem to realize that those naming conventions are arbitrary. When Link hits Northgate and Bellevue, the peak capacity in downtown will be higher than some metros.

When Paris first built its metro system, line 1 had 70m platforms - now extended to 90m. Our system starts with 120m. Was line 1 not a metro when it started? Link's capacity is higher than that was when it was built - and if we moved to entirely low-floor, walk-through vehicles in the future, it would be higher than line 1's capacity today.

I'm sure you'd like to think there are hard and fast distinctions here, but there are not. We've had the 'what's heavy, what's light, what's commuter' discussion in the past, and there are simply no lines between them. Link will be higher capacity through the central city than any other light rail system, and higher than some metros. Is that hard to understand?
For the amount of money that Seattle is spending, Seattle should be getting high platform stations with level floor trains that operate at 70+ mph similar to BART or the Washington Metro. That Seattle is spending so much for light rail is ludicrous.
greg_christine no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium