Do you have any better ideas? [Archive]

MonoRailed

July 12th, 2005, 03:36 AM

I've said it once, and I'll say it again: the current monorail route is idiotic.

How about this: build a monorail that follows a loop through the core of the city. Heading east and north, it could follow a route rougly similar to the 44/43 bus line -- from Ballard, east to the U-district, north to capitol hill, and west to downtown. From there, it could cut south briefly to the international district, and then north, to go back to Ballard (possibly along something similar to the current green line). And plans could be made to coordinate stations with the future sound transit line to northgate!

Elevated transit would make sense for this route, as it would trace through some of Seattle's most congested corridors. It would be a loop, and therefore, similar to existing monorail lines, with fewer switching requirements. It would get cars off the streets, by linking neighborhoods that are currently dense (rather than neighborhoods that wishful thinkers would like to become dense).

That's just one suggestion. Honestly, it doesn't take much thought to come up with more useful alignments for a monorail than the one the SMP chose....

elswinger

July 13th, 2005, 11:15 AM

I like the idea of moving sidewalks, like they have at some airports.

Spongeboy

July 14th, 2005, 11:25 AM

At this point, i'll be happy if they build anything. Even if its just a chair lift from the top of Capital Hill to downtown.

Sirkulat

July 14th, 2005, 11:42 AM

The Seattle Circulator Plan was submitted to Sound Transit and the City in 2000, and to many organizations and media outlets since. It is the least expensive monorail proposal, (about $500mil). Yet, it has the potential to serve more people and generate more revenue than the Greenline.

The route extends the existing line by splitting each end into "single-beam loops". On the south end, the single-beam runs up 5th to Marion, east to I-5, then south and over I-5 and up to Jefferson, east to Broadway, north to Pine, west to I-5, over I-5 to Olive, down olive to 5th and reconnect at Stewart.

Six stations on this south loop: Westlake Mall, Central Library, Harborview Hosp, Seattle University/Swedish Hosp, City College, Convention Place Station, and an optional station at Stewart or nearby.

On the north end loop, one single-beam threads the eye of EMP and the other single-beam runs north to Mercer, west to Warren, south to the proposed site at Key Arena, further south then east in a cut-n-cover tunnel beneath the Thomas roadway, resurface near the EMP and reconnect.

Four stations on the north loop: the parking lot on 5th, 'atop' the Mercer Street parking garage (which doubles as maintenance facility for "6 trains"), Key Arena, and an underground station to access Center House and Flag Pavilion.

This is about 3.5 miles of single-beam monorail track. The 6 trains run at under 5 minute frequency. Single-beam trackway is low visual impact, stanchions are slimmer, stations are easier to locate and less expensive to construct. Every station is readily accessable even though the train always travels in one direction.

Monorailed suggests:

(edited) "Build a monorail that follows a loop: a route from Ballard east to the U-district, north to capitol hill, west to downtown, south to the international district, then north back to Ballard".

This route is approximately 12 miles, too lengthy to be serviced by a single-beam trackway; thus, no cost savings in neither miles of track nor low-cost guideway and stations.

Link LRT may one day reach Capital Hill and UW. Monorailed's proposed route will thus be already served with rapid transit, duplicated with monorail.

The Seattle Circulator connects more destinations in Capital Hill, First Hill, Downtown and Belltown than Link LRT will serve, and more destinations in Lower Queen Anne than the Greenline will serve.

Anyway, I've been promoting the Seattle Circulator Plan since 2000. You want monorail? This one is affordable and serves more people than the Greenline. Write your elected representatives and ask that the Seattle Circulator Plan receive a public review. Don't write the Seattle newspapers because they have seen it and refuse to publicize anything about it.

With love and a huge, spitty raspberry to Seattle media,

Art Lewellan
Hon. Mayor
Ochocoloti Village

Gomezticator

July 14th, 2005, 03:28 PM

I like that plan. How did you come up with the $500 million number?

MonoRailed

July 15th, 2005, 03:02 AM

...you live on Captiol Hill, right? I mean, it's not like you can tell, given that your "Seattle Circulator" route hits at least three locations on the hill, and not one in the U-district, Wallingford, Ballard, or any other major suburb. You might as well term your "route" the "Drunken Hipster Line"....

I mean, really...if we're going to spend money on mass transit, why can't we build a system that will link most of the major suburbs? Capitol Hill, Fremont, Ballard, Queen Anne, Downtown, Belltown, Wallingford and the U District can all be linked with a loop -- why won't we consider it? I hate the monorail, but a comprehensive route would change my mind!

Sirkulat

July 15th, 2005, 10:40 AM

Monorailed, The Seattle Circulator Plan includes a 2nd Phase monorail line to Ballard via Lake Union and Fremont. It runs along Westlake (and/or Dexter) to Seattle Pacific Univ, then a short, inexpensive tunnel under the canal before entering Ballard. This route serves more people and affects more development for future ridership than the Interbay Route of the Greenline.

The ETC study doctored the ridership prediction of the Westlake route to Ballard by leaving stations off the line - no station, no riders. They said it would save money and make travel time faster, a total ruse.

Rather than beginning with a more expensive line of 14 miles of double-track, the Circulator Monorail is only 3.5 miles of single-track. By building the Circulator Monorail first, the Regional Monorail gains several options for entering the Circulator Monorail Line and exiting it north or southbound on the Regional Monorail line. No other monorail plan has devised this option. Think about it.

The $500 million estimate for the Circulator is from comparing miles of trackway - 3.5 vs 14 miles, number of stations - 10 vs 17, the scale of trackway - double-beam vs single-beam, and the simplicity of station siting, design and construction that is possible with single-beam trackway. Double-beam stations have the constrait of locating the station between the beams. Single-beam stations can be located on either side or both sides of the beam and can be incorporated into adjacent buildings more readily.

Serving UW was a lower priority because of Link LRT line. However, the route for Link LRT north could be the Express Lanes of I-5 as was their original intent. Don't laugh. It is possible, just as it is possible to not replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct with elevated highway or tunnel. If Link LRT were to use the Express Lanes, Wallingford would be served equally with UW. Subways are just too expensive. Also, riding in a dark subway, a loud and shrill whistle is ear-piercing.

The Seattle Circulator Plan also incorporates innovative versions of the Streetcar Lines and the downtown Trolleybus system. It's a complete package that citizens ought to have the chance to see. But, agencies, organizations and Seattle media have censoreded publication and a fair review. Sound Transit has deleted at least one of my (perfectly civil) commentaries from their public comment records. They printed my name, and their reply to my comment, but not my comment. They did this to quite a few people regarding the I-5 Bypass of South Center. Oh, they printed other comments completely, but some they decided to censor. Go figure.

Art Lewellan

Seattle Slough

July 19th, 2005, 12:33 AM

We are already building a regional light rail system. We need to put our resources into expanding that system. Our problem is not a local problem. It is a regional problem. Why should Seattle's 500,000 residents pay for a problem that the Greater Seattle Area's three million are all a part of? City borders are arbitrary in a metropolitan area. We do need lines that run to and up the Eastside. We need real transit that links Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. We need to link Redmond, Bellevue, and Renton.

The problem is not 15th Ave NW. And it isn't the West Seattle Bridge. It is the Freeways.

The Green Line merely makes it easier to get downtown for two neighborhoods that actually have really good access to downtown already. You don't go to West Seattle and not go to Burien. You don't go to Ballard and not continue to Shoreline. We need a real transit system. Not an amusement park ride. I ride the bus from Beacon Hill downtown every day. It takes about 20 minutes. There is similarly swift service from Ballard and West Seattle.

Downtown is not crowded with cars from Ballard and West Seattle. And those that do drive are not burning up lots of fuel doing it.

Let's put this money into finishing the Sound Transit link we have started. It links the Airport, Tukwila, South Seattle, Beacon Hill, Downtown (ID to Convention Center), Broadway, Husky Stadium, North U District, Roosevelt and Northgate.

Let's build that and then expand off it. All integrated. All regional.

Sirkulat

July 19th, 2005, 10:58 AM

Seattle Slough says, "Our problem is not a local problem. It is a regional problem. We need lines that run to and up the Eastside, linking Tacoma, Seattle, Everett, Redmond, Bellevue, and Renton. Let's put this money into finishing the Sound Transit Link light rail, connecting the Airport, Tukwila, South Seattle, Beacon Hill, Downtown, Broadway, Husky Stadium, North U District, Roosevelt and Northgate."

Slough is correct about the need for regional transit. However, more people would take Link were it not for inconvenient transfers downtown. Link stations downtown have a limited walking range, (less than a quarter mile), because of the torturously hilly terrain. Downtown transit must be improved; and local circulators require the least number of buses to increase the frequency of service to make transfers convenient. The Circulator Monorail creates a convenient transfer from Link light rail to destinations Link will not serve, and even frequent bus service is still too slow.

Regional transit is needed to direct regional growth and development. Overwhelming commuter traffic can never be managed because it never stops growing. Expanding the freeways and building light rail are futile if regional growth increases the need for commuting.

Light rail can rightly be considered an "anti-commute" system. But, because Link bypassed South Center, Tukwila resident's need for long-distance commuting will continue to grow beyond the capacity of both Link light rail and the freeways. Link trains will be "jam packed" during 3 hours of rush hour operation, but mostly empty the rest of the time and in the reverse-commute direction, (about 30 hours of operation/direction), south of downtown. Thus, link service will be uncomfortably packed 10% of the time, and mostly empty 90% of the time. Sound Transit screwed up royally in bypassing South Center. Seattle agency and media censor this analysis in deferrence to deep-pocket development interests.

Seattle Slough

July 21st, 2005, 12:19 PM

http://www.soundtransit.org/projects/svc/link/tukwila/s154thst.asp

Sure the station is not in the mall per se. But it is in Tukwila, and there will surely be mall shuttles just like there will be airport shuttles. And parking for 600 cars and a place for busses to drop people off.

here is the ST longrange map, (which could quite possibly be built for $11 billion)
http://www.soundtransit.org/pdf/projects/seis/Long-Range_PlanMap_7-7-05.pdf

You'll notice that Ballard gets linked to both the downtown tunnel and the U-District. As for West Seattle, it has express busses to Burien, with rail from Burien past SeaTac mall, and right up to Woodenville on the Eastside. Downtown is steep for sure, but the stations on third avenue are not that hard to get to from anywhere. Plus there are already free busses that run up nearly every street if you are too lazy or unable to walk up a few blocks.

For my money, let's build $2 billion dollars worth of bike lanes.

Sirkulat

July 21st, 2005, 06:51 PM

The Link station is not in the South Center mall per se. But it is in Tukwila (S.154th), and there will surely be mall shuttles just like there will be airport shuttles. And parking for 600 cars and a place for busses to drop people off.

Here is the ST long range map. Notice that Ballard gets linked to both the downtown tunnel and the U-District. As for West Seattle, it has express buses to Burien, with rail from Burien past SeaTac mall, and right up to Woodenville on the Eastside.

Downtown is steep for sure, but the stations on third avenue are not that hard to get to from anywhere. Plus there are already free buses that run up nearly every street if you are too lazy or unable to walk up a few blocks.

For my money, let's build $2 billion dollars worth of bike lanes.

Slough. South Center is Tukwila's commercial core, (according to Tukwila City Council). It has industry and jobs, entertainments, and sensible plans for major growth. Serving South Center is more important than serving Seatac! A shuttle can not suffice for the direct service of light rail. The stations nearest South Center are 2 miles away and on the other side of I-5. The S.154th Link station is little more than a parking lot. Who wants to go there? How can that boxed-in lot become anything more? It's development potential is limited. A station at 160th with accompanying development would have produced more loyal ridership. Good grief.

Sound Transit's long range map is a disgrace! It's the same thing as censorship to present maps that are so lacking in detail. I'm shocked that on this July 7th map, ST incorporate light rail to Ballard, as if it's possible and practical, and as if they knew monorail wouldn't be built there instead.

Burien may yet get light rail to Renton and north, but I doubt it. Even if it did, South Center should have been the junction between the two lines.

The problem with downtown Seattle buses, is that they don't run often enough. And yes, the hills are torturous :eek: for most people.

Look, I came up with a good monorail proposal and you and so many others took one brief glance and showed Seattle's true colors: selfishness. It's a good plan. You're just too selfish to think outside the box of your own little world. $2 billion on bicycle lanes? Yeah right. Good plan. Whoa, I'm impressed.

Seattle Slough

July 22nd, 2005, 12:29 PM

I suppose anyone who finds it tortuous to walk from 1st to 3rd or from 3rd to 6th (either two or three whole blocks!) would not be impressed with safe, well-maintained bike lanes leading from Ballard or West Seattle, or Magnolia, or Fremont, or the University of Washington, or . . .

Sorry for the censorship. I'll never let it happen again ;)

My point is, Sound Transit know what they are doing. They are already building. That big thing going in next to the Rainier/Tully's building is the Sound Transit yard. That is where all the trains go to get painted, and repaired and what not. A single unified system can utilize lead to less redundant, unecessary and redundant structures, as all the tracks could be linked together. Did I mention that having two facilities would be redundant? Because it would be. Redundant that is. Kind of like the ETC. Redundant.

We already have a large mass transit bureaucracy building trains. Do we really need two?

Sirkulat

July 22nd, 2005, 08:53 PM

Anyone who finds it tortuous to walk (up steep hills) would not be impressed with safe bike lanes through Ballard or West Seattle, or Magnolia, or Fremont, or the UW, or . . .
Sorry for the censorship. I'll never let it happen again ;)
We already have a large mass transit bureaucracy building trains. Do we really need two?
Slough. Bicycling up Seattle's hills - that's even more torturous than walking up them. You think differently only because you're not thinking about others, senior citizens, children, those carrying packages, women in heels. Safe bike lanes? Only completely separate bike paths are truly safe.

You didn't censor anything, Slough. You just passed along a map so short of details, Sound Transit's integrity can be questioned. "Sound Transit knows what they're doing". Don't make me laugh.

Where light rail cannot be built to connect all points of the metropolitan area, monorail would not be redundant. Junctions between incompatible transit systems aren't necessarily a bad thing, if they are built into destinations with more going on than a stinking park-n-ride.

Johnny Slick

July 23rd, 2005, 10:09 AM

My biggest problem with the mass transit we're implementing is that it's too north-south when the biggest problems with traffic are clearly east-west. Of course, Bellevue will *never* pay for a monorail or something of that ilk over Lake Washington, so it's probably a moot point... but it's still a good idea.

Lucius Bolivar

July 25th, 2005, 03:20 AM

Get local corporations to pay a fair share of taxes, and there's more than enough for the monorail and new viaduct, and probably a giant indoor heated public pool lined with 24k gold.

If that doesn't fly for some silly reason, sell naming rights for monorail stations, monorail cars (and their paint jobs) or the whole transportation system itself. Welcome aboard Microsoft Rail. This is the Coke train, next stop, Starbucks station. Mind the Gap.

TSTB

July 26th, 2005, 05:04 PM

So...it's clear that no matter how much money is spent on highways in the greater Seattle area, the congestion will only get worse. At some point people will either refuse to drive to Seattle or be unable to. When that finally happens, the jobs will have to go where the workers are. They'll either go out of town or out of state. This happens all the time. Let's start with the all the Government workers. They work for us, right? Lets put their offices out of town. It's an all fax/email world anyway. Many people who commute to an office in Seattle would be delighted not to. The highways are full. The streets are full. The city is full.
Look we can't build highways fast enough. Light rail is too expensive and empty most of the time. The mono rail is a tourist attraction and should stay that way. The existing systems are adequate for those who live in Seattle and who pass through on I-5. We can spend 500 million or 2 billion now and delay the inevitable for less than a decade, or wake up now.
Giving more money to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys...they can't handle it.

Sirkulat

July 27th, 2005, 11:15 AM

No matter how much money is spent on highways, the traffic will only get worse. At some point people will either refuse to drive to Seattle or be unable to. When that finally happens, the jobs will have to go where the workers are; out of town or out of state. Put government offices out of town. Many people who commute to an office in Seattle would be delighted not to. The highways are full. The streets are full. The city is full. We can't build highways fast enough. Light rail is too expensive and empty most of the time. The monorail is a tourist attraction and should stay that way.
TSTB. Jobs have been moving out of downtown for years. Access to these jobs does not include adequate, convenient mass transit. Light rail systems get the most riders when their routes include job-rich suburban destinations like South Center. Because Link bypassed South Center, there is little reason to ride Link in the southbound direction. Tukwila area residents' access there remains limited to driving or an infrequent, unreliable, uncomfortable bus. Because Link is designed to get commuters and money-laden tourists into Seattle, Link will increase the demand for travel to downtown, most of which can only be met by driving. Thus, bypassing South Center guarantees greater traffic congestion. The decision to bypass South Center was made by the Automobile Lobby, as seen on TV.

Monorail can perform similar to light rail in speed and capacity. Monorail can reach some destinations where light rail cannot. Building either of these rail-based mass transit systems, responsibly, combined with future development of asphalt-strangled places like South Center, could reduce traffic. But inexplicably, transit in Seattle ends up in the crap hole and the highway lobby ends up with the lion's share of the transportation dollar, building more highways that are even surer to be overwhelmed with traffic.

prtsupporter

August 19th, 2005, 10:46 AM

If you couldn't build the monorail, what would you build instead?Personal Rapid Transit, aka PRT (http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/getonboard.html)

Any transit system that serves a small corridor or has long waits at stations is not good. PRT is better because it can serve a large portion of the city for less money, and is on-demand, meaning that you don't have to wait for a car when you get to the station.

Read more at the above link.

Sirkulat

August 21st, 2005, 10:40 AM

Any transit system that serves a small corridor or has long waits at stations is not good. PRT is better because it can serve a large portion of the city for less money, and is on-demand, meaning that you don't have to wait for a car when you get to the station.
PRT raises the same objections associated with monorail, (high costs, visual obstruction of beams, stanchions and stations), only moreso. No high-demand transit corridor can be served with mini-cars on a single-track. Imagine long lines and fights over who'll take the next car leaving the station. Imagine the size and number of stations of an extensive PRT pipe dream. The advocates of PRT have poor visualization skills.

Monorail could work, but the Greenline is so poorly engineered, I can find no other explanation than that it is intentionally designed to fail. Meanwhile, Southwest Airlines proposes building a 3300 stall parking garage at Boeing Field and increase their flights though jet fuel costs skyrocket and US soldiers die in another Goddam war for oil. Monorail could work, but it would be a conflict of interest to Seattle's movers n' shakers glorifying and profiting from car-dependency and long-distance travel. Seattle sucks.

prtsupporter

August 21st, 2005, 06:11 PM

Sirkulat

August 22nd, 2005, 11:54 AM

PRT raises the same objections associated with monorail, (high costs, visual obstruction of beams, stanchions and stations), only moreso. No high-demand transit corridor can be served with mini-cars on a single-track. Imagine long lines and fights over who'll take the next car leaving the station. Imagine the size and number of stations of an extensive PRT pipe dream. The advocates of PRT have poor visualization skills.
When PRTSupporter gets the referenced site working properly, claims about PRT can be fairly discussed and the technology proven impractical. Still, the artist's rendition of PRT is a 4-wheel vehicle on a full lane with knee-high borders in a double-lane line. This huge overhead infrastructure is surely more expensive than monorail. The most touted claim of PRT is to eliminate transfers via switching from one line to another. Imagine switches of this size.

Consider how transfers are necessary, desirable and should not be eliminated:

The problem isn't the transfer, it's the time waiting to transfer. At transfer points, development can become intregal components of the economy, where goods, services, occupations, housing and amenities can be located; brick and morter, jobs, walkable districts. Or, transfer points can be a poor economic element like the ubiquitous park-n-ride transit center. The PRT claim to eliminate transfers is the same misguided idea committed by most transit planners who fail to incorporate land-use and development elements into transit design.

The most practical configuration on PRTSupporter's webpage was a single line PRT circulator which junctioned at a regional rapid transit line. The trick to making this transfer configuration successful is to run the PRT or bus or streetcar at under 5 minute frequency. Circulators do this with the least number of vehicles. However, when riders on a regional rapid transit line reach a station with a high demand, a larger than 4-person PRT vehicle is necessary, and it should not switch off to other lines because this requires more vehicles and would interupt the reliable frequency of the junction transfer. Sirkulat

prtsupporter

August 23rd, 2005, 10:57 AM

This huge overhead infrastructure is surely more expensive than monorail.Less than $10 million per mile. That is significantly less expensive than monorail. Of course, a PRT system will have more miles of track to cover more area and therefore be more available to more people and more locations. That helps provide a PRT system the ability to transport it's passengers to near their destination without transfers.

The most touted claim of PRT is to eliminate transfers via switching from one line to another. Imagine switches of this size.The switches are integrated in the cars. They are small and reliable.

The problem isn't the transfer, it's the time waiting to transfer.Any time waiting for the transportation medium (bus, train, etc) is basically wasted time. Every transfer includes waiting for the next vehicle to arrive. In a fully developed PRT system, there are no transfers and very little initial waiting (less than 2 minutes, if any). With trips that don't have stops and basically no waiting to board, the total time devoted to transportation is small, so what need is there to have all of this development at the stations?

The trick to making this transfer configuration successful is to run the PRT or bus or streetcar at under 5 minute frequency.Typically no waiting to get on a PRT car.

...a larger than 4-person PRT vehicle is necessary...You may be missing the fundamental point of PRT: each vehicle goes to one destination, then is available to make another trip. Vehicles aren't shared since most people aren't going to the same destination, it doesn't make sense to have large vehicles.

Sirkulat

August 24th, 2005, 11:02 AM

PRTSupporter, I gave a brief explanation of how PRT neglects land-use and development aspect of transit planning, but you went on a standard 'stay the course' speech, just like George Dumbass Bush does when questioned. Basically, you like PRT because freedom, democracy, terrorism, God bless America and PRT rocks baby. We are so not impressed.

prtsupporter

August 25th, 2005, 11:38 AM

I gave a brief explanation of how PRT neglects land-use and development aspect of transit planningCould you expand on this? Honestly, I want to understand the problem and how to improve the situation.

Here are my perceptions of things you mentioned. Please correct anything I misunderstood.

I think you say that park-n-ride transit centers aren't good because there isn't any deveopment there: it's a parking lot and there aren't any stores, housing or amenities there.

"Transfer points" mean stations where a rider either gets on a bus or train, or gets off one bus/train and onto another. You think it's good for the area around transfer points to be developed ("where goods, services, occupations, housing and amenities can be located; brick and morter[sic], jobs, walkable districts"). I guess a transfer point also includes "final destination stations", since housing and job are located there. Are you saying that transfer points (stations?) should be surrounded by all types of development (industrial, commercial, and residential) for convenience of passengers of the transit system?

You say "The problem...is the time waiting to transfer." Then you say "At transfer points, development can become intregal components of the economy." So, if the time waiting to transfer is a problem, how does development at the transfer points eliminate the problem?

You suggest that most transit planners "fail to incorporate land-use and development elements into transit design." I interpret this as either "bulid residential, commercial, and industrial areas near the transit lines" or "build transit lines near residential, commercial, and industrial areas". I agree that transportation should be accessible to and from all of those types of area.

A PRT system, if built to cover most of the city, which is when it is most effective, would provide accessibility to residential, commercial, and industrial areas. A passenger boarding at any station would have access to any of the other stations on the entire system, so any services or goods or jobs available within the area covered by the PRT system is available. Any extension to the system, such as the airport, would be accessible from any station. Areas like West Seattle can be connected and have transportation to anywhere in the city as easily as anyone else. I would call this good land use.

Since PRT has small guideways and small posts, it is not very intrusive to install. When using existing streets or sidewalks to build the guideways along, I would think this falls into good land use, if we're talking about preserving the existing environment. (How does the Circulator plan compare?)

I think everyone agrees that having a transit system that provides the passenger the shortest total travel time is the most optimal. The less time that a person is travelling, the more time they have to do other things, the things they want to do. By eliminating transfers and having stations near everything and non-stop travel, PRT minimizes the amount of time a person travels.

Sirkulat

August 25th, 2005, 01:38 PM

Could you expand on this? You say that park-n-ride transit centers aren't good because there isn't any development there.

You think it's good for the area around transfer points to be developed ("where goods, services, occupations, housing and amenities can be located.

You say "The problem...is the time waiting to transfer." Then you say "At transfer points, development can become intregal components of the economy." So, if the time waiting to transfer is a problem, how does development at the transfer points eliminate the problem?

You suggest that most transit planners "fail to incorporate land-use and development elements into transit design." I agree that transportation should be accessible to and from all of those types of area.

A PRT system, if built to cover most of the city, would provide accessibility to residential, commercial, and industrial areas. A passenger boarding at any station would have access to any of the other stations on the entire system. Any extension to the system would be accessible from any station. I would call this good land use.

I think having a transit system that provides the passenger the shortest total travel time is the most optimal. By eliminating transfers and having stations near everything and non-stop travel, PRT minimizes the amount of time a person travels.

Look at the way common bus lines are arranged: they share a corridor of many lines and then 'fan out' further from the central shared corridor. This arrangement is typically called a "Hub-n-spoke" system and is akin to the PRT idea of eliminating transfers. However, the central shared corridor has its own measurable demand that isn't met via this kind of system. Bus after bus after bus go by leaving more people waiting than riding. The transit demand on the central corridor is much higher than the corridors where the lines 'fan out' which have their own measurable demand that similarly cannot be met by this system. Attempting to eliminate transfers ruined transit potential on both corridors. And, it ruined development potential at the transfer point. Development at such transfer points, increases transit patronage. And, services are dispersed to more locales, which in turn reduce the distances between home and services. The best land-use reduces the need for long-distance travel by developing services closer to home, where they can be accessed by walking and bicycling as well as by transit and cars/trucks.

No matter how small a PRT vehicle may be, the overhead track infrastructure and stations are still large and expensive. The more extensive a PRT system gets, the more the cars bottleneck at high demand stations. The more every transfer point of a PRT system develops, the larger the car must be. There are just too many ways in which PRT predictably can fail. Seattle is NOT going to build PRT.

The Circulator Monorail is the simplest, least expensive, least invasive monorail proposal. It's only 3.5 miles of single track, 6 cars and 10 stations. It junctions with Link light rail at two stations, (Westlake Mall and Convention Place Station), affecting an important and convenient transfer between the rail systems. It has 2 stations in First Hill, (Harborview Hosp and Seattle University/Swedish Hosp), both of which are better located to serve those destinations than the now abandoned Link LRT First Hill Station. It serves more of Lower Queen Anne and Seattle Center than the Green Line. Read the description of the Circulator Monorail line again. Lay it out on a map if you like. The Green Line is probably dead. The Circulator Monorail pairs nicely with Link, is affordable (approx $500mil) and I'm pretty sure serves more people and generates more revenue than the Green Line, despite is small scale.

prtsupporter

August 25th, 2005, 02:22 PM

No matter how small a PRT vehicle may be, the overhead track infrastructure and stations are still large and expensive. The more extensive a PRT system gets, the more the cars bottleneck at high demand stations. The more every transfer point of a PRT system develops, the larger the car must be.High demand stations would have more berths for loading and unloading. PRT system capacity is increased by more trips, not more capacity per car. Each trip will be point-to-point, which is the most efficient for each passenger, since they go to where they want to go.

The guideway will be small since the car will be small (~1000 lbs). It is much easier and cheaper to build and install guideways of this size then for a large heavy monorail, or to build train rails on land.

The Circulator Monorail is the simplest, least expensive, least invasive monorail proposal. It's only 3.5 miles of single track, 6 cars and 10 stations. It junctions with Link light rail at two stations, (Westlake Mall and Convention Place Station), affecting an important and convenient transfer between the rail systems. It has 2 stations in First Hill, (Harborview Hosp and Seattle University/Swedish Hosp), both of which are better located to serve those destinations than the now abandoned Link LRT First Hill Station. It serves more of Lower Queen Anne and Seattle Center than the Green Line. Read the description of the Circulator Monorail line again. Lay it out on a map if you like. The Green Line is probably dead. The Circulator Monorail pairs nicely with Link, is affordable (approx $500mil) and I'm pretty sure serves more people and generates more revenue than the Green Line, despite is small scale.Do you have a link to the proposal? How did you come up with $500 million? Do you have a link to a map showing the stations and the route?

prtsupporter

August 25th, 2005, 05:57 PM

The best land-use reduces the need for long-distance travel by developing services closer to home, where they can be accessed by walking and bicycling as well as by transit and cars/trucks.Yes, I agree. However, not all services (airport, docks, etc) can be located within walking or biking distances of the homes that they serve.
Look at the way common bus lines are arranged: they share a corridor of many lines and then 'fan out' further from the central shared corridor. This arrangement is typically called a "Hub-n-spoke" system and is akin to the PRT idea of eliminating transfers. However, the central shared corridor has its own measurable demand that isn't met via this kind of system. Bus after bus after bus go by leaving more people waiting than riding. The transit demand on the central corridor is much higher than the corridors where the lines 'fan out' which have their own measurable demand that similarly cannot be met by this system. Attempting to eliminate transfers ruined transit potential on both corridors. And, it ruined development potential at the transfer point. Development at such transfer points, increases transit patronage. And, services are dispersed to more locales, which in turn reduce the distances between home and services.I think the situation you describe is accurate.

The fundamental problem with this situation is that these bus lines require the riders to adhere to the routes and schedules that the buses run on. The rider has to go where the bus goes. If they want to go somewhere else, they have to find another bus to take them there. This promotes the existence of these transit centers and main corridors where people can transfer between lines.

A PRT system is fundamentally different here. The PRT car takes the rider to (near) their destination. With a fully-developed PRT system that covers the entire city, a PRT trip would avoid this central corridor and take the most direct route to the destination. Of course, if your destination is somewhere in this central corridor, that's where you would go.

Ultimately, the goal of public transportation is to reduce personal vehicle travel, which reduces congestion, use of resources, etc. Patronage of a PRT system would be high because of: on-demand availability, direct transit to the desired destination, etc. Those are the same reasons that people still drive cars!

Any static transit system has the same restriction: a route only serves the passengers that want to travel between points on that route. Any group-based transit system has another restriction: everybody has to stop when the vehicle stops. Since PRT has no fixed routes and is individual-destination based, it doesn't have those restrictions.

Sirkulat

August 25th, 2005, 08:55 PM

PRTSupporter. All this 'theorizing' about how PRT would work if it were completely built out is still far-fetched. You're alone in the belief it would work, let alone affordably and with low impact. Let's look at what's wrong with what we have and what's wrong with the proposed light rail and monorail.

I agree with the concept of a "trunkline" light rail and monorail rapid transit. Such trunklines are fed bus riders at transfer points. Some riders complain that the old bus line delivered them to central destinations without the transfer, complain that the route to the transfer point adds distance to the previous route, and that the transfer adds time. But, if the transfer point is developed, the rider eventually shortens the distance between home and services. The development is more important than the transit design. And because the trips to further destinations on rail rapid transit have fewer stops, are less slowed by traffic, and are comfortably endurable, the new transit system has these benefits.

Still, the transfer to/from trunklines is the biggest complaint. Transit riders won't wait longer than 15 mins, will accept transfers under 10 mins and are delighted with transfers under 5 mins. When a transfer point is a park-n-ride or a transit center, not enough development can occur to build enough ridership to build frequent transfers. Circulators at transfer points are the simplest, least expensive means to create frequent transfers, and circulators require the least land, land that otherwise can be dedicated to development.

So, I support existing and practical technologies, (not far-fetched, untested, complicated PRT), but add the proviso of frequent transfers especially via circulators and transit-oriented development. This is not so complicated.

The fundamental problem is that these bus lines require riders to adhere to routes and schedules the buses run on. If they want to go somewhere else, they must transfer to another bus. This promotes transit centers and main corridors for transferring between lines.

A PRT system is fundamentally different here. The PRT car takes the rider to (near) their destination. With a fully-developed PRT system that covers the entire city, a PRT trip would avoid this central corridor and take the most direct route to the destination. Since PRT has no fixed routes and is individual-destination based, it doesn't have the restrictions of fixed-route systems.

Gomezticator

August 25th, 2005, 09:16 PM

Sirkulat

August 26th, 2005, 10:09 AM

I may be in the minority at the moment, but I'm digging this PRT idea. It looks like they have a lot of bases covered, and it appears the only real obstacle is a lack of familiarity and proven success with it. I mean, to have asked a lot of the skeptical questions themselves and having made an effort to answer them, it comes off as a sound option. I don't see why this wouldn't warrant at least at least a test run somewhere in a city.
PRT is attractive to car-addicts, pretending to offer the same privacy and door-to-door utility as the personal car. Few car addicts will admit how the car is a transportation monopoly and a Constitutional Inequity. Because of their menacing presence and dedicated infrastructure, the car presents a severe impediment to other means of urban/suburban travel - walking, bicycling and mass transit. It is no surprise that PRT, despite its extensive infrastructure and complicated operation, has become a favored transit concept for the car-addict. PRT is not going to happen, Buck Rogers.

prtsupporter

August 26th, 2005, 10:19 AM

All this 'theorizing' about how PRT would work if it were completely built out is still far-fetched.Research has been done. Simulations have been made. Proposals have been written. Prototypes have been built. It's achievable.
You're alone in the belief it would work, let alone affordably and with low impact.A quick search (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22personal+rapid+transit%22) shows that I am far from alone.

And because the trips to further destinations on rail rapid transit have fewer stops, are less slowed by traffic, and are comfortably endurable, the new transit system has these benefits.PRT has these benefits, too.

Transit riders won't wait longer than 15 mins, will accept transfers under 10 mins and are delighted with transfers under 5 mins.10 minutes after arriving at a PRT station, you could have already paid for the trip, boarded a car, rode for 4 miles, and arrived at your destination station. If riders are accepting of the waiting for conventional transit, they should be thrilled with the service provided by a PRT system.

Gomezticator

August 26th, 2005, 12:19 PM

C'mon, Sirkulat. You're a better thinker than this.

PRT is attractive to car-addicts, pretending to offer the same privacy and door-to-door utility as the personal car.

First of all, not everyone is a 'car-addict'. It's not like people get the shakes if they take the bus to work. This sort of conspiracy thinking is part of the reason mass-transit supporters aren't taken seriously and dismissed as long-haired liberal hippies.

I've discussed this several times before. Families can't practically transport their kids to school by bus, or easily bring a dozen bags of groceries home by bus, or go camping on the weekends by bus. The disabled, assuming they can use a wheelchair or walker (this discounts those who cannot), have such a hard time riding the bus that it holds up EVERYONE every time they get on or off the bus. And of course, carrying heavy items that are too heavy to be carried by hand an extended distance is completely impractical by bus or on foot. Some people use cars because they honestly NEED to. Those who drive alone, however, likely do so because it's convenient and mostly safe. Ask a woman to catch a connecting bus alone in Pioneer Square at 11 o'clock at night. She probably drives for a reason.

A lot of the reasons listed in this PRT plan why people don't use mass transit, the rigid schedules and routes, the delays, the limited destinations and so on, are more in line with why people drive instead. Not everyone is a car-addicted transit-hating asshole. Stop it. Grow up.

Few car addicts will admit how the car is a transportation monopoly and a Constitutional Inequity. Because of their menacing presence and dedicated infrastructure, the car presents a severe impediment to other means of urban/suburban travel - walking, bicycling and mass transit.

Menacing presence? When did a four door sedan become the 21st Century Panzer? Where have *I* been? And guess what else has dedicated infrastructure? That's right, rail-based transit! Monorail! Light Rail! And I can't consider a road a severe impediment to other means of travel, if buses, bicycles and taxis get to use them too.

Again, this is just irrational, baseless, seething bitterness. The CEO of General Motors isn't walking into Seattle and trying to pay off Greg Nickels to scrap the monorail and bus service. People still need cars, period. Just not everyone, and the system proposed, however new and unproven, makes a better effort to get single-person car users out of their cars than building a rail line and trying to maliciously coerce people into changing by tearing down roads and building thick neighborhoods to create heavier traffic.

It is no surprise that PRT, despite its extensive infrastructure and complicated operation, has become a favored transit concept for the car-addict. PRT is not going to happen, Buck Rogers.

When the fuck did I become a car addict? Where is my car? I haven't seen it yet, and I'd love for you to show it to me, so I can sell it and bank the money. Like I could pay for insurance, gas and parking for that thing.

People use cars and they have their reasons. PRT would get people out of their cars. Trying to force people to take a crowded train or bus with dozens of strangers does not.

And that's MISTER BUCK ROGERS to you.

Sirkulat

August 26th, 2005, 11:42 PM

[QUOTE=Gomezticator]First of all, not everyone is a 'car-addict'. It's not like people get the shakes if they take the bus to work. This sort of conspiracy thinking is part of the reason mass-transit supporters aren't taken seriously and dismissed as long-haired liberal hippies.
Fine. Don't get your panties all in a bunch! Over 90% of all urban trips in the US are by car. Mass transit about 3%. Walking about 5%. Bicycling and misc the remainder. World standards for this "modality split" vary, but travel by car in other nations is a much smaller percentage. By this measurement, US motorists are indeed "addicted" or otherwise dependent upon their rolling pollute-mobiles.
Families can't practically transport their kids to school by bus, bring groceries home, camp, etc by bus. The disabled have a hard time with the bus and hold up EVERYONE every time they get on and off. Carrying heavy items is impractical by bus or on foot. people use cars because they honestly NEED to. Those who drive alone, do so because it's convenient and safe.
No disagreement here. But mass transit must become a more viable alternative for most people, not necessarily for ALL trips, but for that percentage of trips which are practical via mass transit.
The reasons listed are why people don't use mass transit - the rigid schedules and routes, the delays, the limited destinations and so on, are more in line with why people drive instead.
Fine. But, the problems with existing mass transit CAN be remedied with existing technology, rather than with this pipe dream called PRT.
Menacing presence? When did a four door sedan become the 21st Century Panzer? Where have I been? And guess what else has dedicated infrastructure? That's right, rail-based transit! Monorail! Light Rail! And I can't consider a road a severe impediment to other means of travel, if buses, bicycles and taxis get to use them too.
The death toll is about 40,000 auto-related annually. The injury toll is more than 10 times that. More important than this casually dismissed travesty, I chose the word "impediment" to describe how the automobile "presence", (it's menacing speed and numbers), impedes pedestrian and bicycle mobility, fundamental modes of travel. Mass transit is likewise impeded because it is accessed by pedestrian movement.
This is just irrational, baseless, seething bitterness. The CEO of General Motors isn't walking into Seattle and trying to pay off Greg Nickels to scrap the monorail and bus service. The [prt] system proposed, however new and unproven, makes a better effort to get single-person car users out of their cars than building a rail line and trying to maliciously coerce people into changing by tearing down roads and building thick neighborhoods to create heavier traffic.
So building rail systems is "malicious coercion" now, is it? Check out your own irrational, baseless bitterness, Bub. PRT has so many obvious drawbacks that it is far too impractical to implement, period. Rail systems are proven successes all around the world. Rail fares far better than 3rd World bus systems - in pollution control, in effectively moving people, in affecting positive development of urban settings, etc.

Those bass-turds at General Motors are LYING to the American people about the potential of the Hydrogen fuel cell car. GM has a lot to do with the failure of mass transit systems in this country, including the piss poor design of the Greenline and Link LRT.
When the fuck did I become a car addict? Where is my car? I haven't seen it yet, and I'd love for you to show it to me, so I can sell it and bank the money. Like I could pay for insurance, gas and parking for that thing.
Grow up, yourself. You read into my statements what you wanted to hear. I never addressed you directly as a car addict.
PRT would get people out of their cars. Trying to force people to take a crowded train or bus with dozens of strangers does not. And that's MISTER BUCK ROGERS to you.
PRT is attractive to CAR ADDICTS pretending it offers the same privacy and door-to-door utility as the personal car. Buck Rogers was a fictional character. PRT is also fictional. There are ways in which rail and bus systems can improve their utility. I have tried to communicate theories toward this end, but for all my efforts, few have understood. I saw a letter to the editor the other day, COMPLAINING that Link LRT bypasses South Center. I feel gratified. My effort reached someone. Gomezticizer, you're not interested in an honest debate. You're anti-rail. You're anti-density (btw, I'm anti-density too. Think diversity instead). You're out here encouraging PRT supporters because you know PRT won't work. You're a troll. It's a shame that Seattle's rail projects are so poorly planned, but this doesn't mean they can't be improved. GM is indeed ruining Seattle's latest effort to build rail transit.
--

Gomezticator

August 27th, 2005, 11:20 AM

You're out here encouraging PRT supporters because you know PRT won't work. You're a troll.

WHOA, WHAT?

First of all, I liked the PRT idea. I didn't say the idea was totally viable, and let's table light rail RIGHT NOW, to hell with it, and let's throw all our money in developing a PRT system immediately. We haven't seen PRT at work on a large scale (the only system in place is an archaic tram version on the West Virginia university campus). I think the first step is to give it a test run somewhere in urban America to see what benefits it has.

Meanwhile, you've instantly dismissed it as a car-addict's dream, like it's mass-transit cancer, without giving any thought as to its viability. And I'm the troll? While you're attacking me for thinking it's a good idea rather than disproving my statements about the inconveniences of mass transit? Though it's designed as a stand-alone system, the idea is that the system will be built alongside other existing transit systems.

I take the bus, and I'd use a light rail system or monorail if it was a) efficient, got me where I needed to go faster than taking the bus and b) cost-effective, not costing much more than taking the bus. I can't think I'm in the minority there. Put a monorail or light rail system in places people won't go, and people won't use it. Fortunately, Link will be a boon for the south side. However, I see an expensive monorail plan that only serves Ballard, Queen Anne, Downtown and West Seattle. At the risk of sounding selfish, I find it hard to support an expensive monorail that doesn't benefit me. It's great if I want to go to these neighborhoods and I happen to be downtown, or if I lived in one of these fortunate neighborhoods, but otherwise it does me and everyone else no real good other than to have something to point at when supporting mass transit.

I want mass transit options for the future, because like anyone else I want to be able to get around more effectively. While I like that I can catch a variety of buses to a variety of buses during the day, I hate that at midnight I have to wait up to 45 minutes to catch a connecting bus. Find me one person in Seattle that doesn't think that's a problem. Whether or not they have a plan, the PRT website has a valid point about the inconveniences of buses and a bus-rail-transfer transit system. Give 10 people the option of walking half a mile, waiting 10 minutes, catching a 10-15 minute bus ride, waiting 10-15 minutes for a train, riding for another 10-20 minutes, and waiting for another bus to take them five blocks from their destination... and getting in a car and driving straight to their destination, and 9 out of 10 likely would choose the car, expenses be damned. Find a way for mass transit to solve that problem, and you will get people out of their cars.

I look at the status quo among the mass transit movement, and supporters treating drivers like The Enemy, and with plans to diversify mass transit comes talk of 'coercing' drivers out of their cars. Why not try to give drivers a comfortable transportation option they can feel good about using instead of 'coercing' them? That's what I mean by 'malicious'. Can supporters make a mass transit option that's comfortable enough to get motorists out of their cars?

Don't panic. Link light rail's already being built. Seattle will have some sort of rail transit no matter what. PRT is years of prototypes and observational research away from becoming a viable option. Cities will not take a hammer to mass transit if PRT is shown to work, especially if dedicated mass transit infrastructure is already in place. Mass transit is part of Seattle's future and yes, Sirkulat, I'm happy about that. Whether or not I come off as an ass, I'm on the side of mass transit.

But give this PRT idea a little more than dismissive thought. If you're worried about PRT encouraging a culture of isolationists, the problem goes far beyond transit options. Get on a bus, ferry or a train and you'll see 50 people who won't look each other in the eye. It's not just people in cars who dissociate from society. That's a societal problem, and building a train instead of a single-occupant transit system isn't going to solve that.

Sirkulat

August 27th, 2005, 05:54 PM

First of all, I didn't say PRT was totally viable. Meanwhile, you've instantly dismissed it as a car-addict's dream, without giving any thought as to its viability. And I'm the troll? While you're attacking me for thinking it's a good idea rather than disproving my statements about the inconveniences of mass transit? Though it's designed as a stand-alone system, the idea is that the system will be built alongside other existing transit systems.I have given plenty of thought to its viability and conclude it's not viable. Costly, invasive infrastructure, too complicated to operate, too 'small scale' to serve enough people to justify the expense. I'd use a light rail or monorail if it, a) got me where I needed to go faster than taking the bus, and b) not cost much more than taking the bus. This is why I think you're a troll. You're bias against rail is much too simplistic. The bigger picture with rail how it can help direct growth and development which affects not your immediate needs, but rather how it affects the majority of region's population in the future. Fortunately, Link will be a boon for the south side. I predict Link will fail because it bypasses South Center. I see an expensive monorail plan that only serves Ballard, Queen Anne, Downtown and West Seattle.I object to the proposed Green Line for reasons mostly based on its route and station siting. Ultimately, if it is extended to junction with light rail at Northgate and Seatac, it would be a valuable regional transit line perfectly integrated with LRT. But, I don't agree with the Interbay route, the route through Seattle Center, downtown, and through West Seattle. A better route between West Seattle-downtown-Ballard is possible and necessary. Greenline should go back to the drawing board. It's main problem is NOT the financing scandal.The PRT website has a valid point about the inconveniences of buses and a bus-rail-transfer transit system. When transit users must walk to a bus stop, wait for a bus, then transfer to a train, transfer to another bus and then walk to their destination, 9 out of 10 will choose to drive instead. Development at transfer points eventually brings services closer to home. Unless this occurs, the need for long-distance travel increases beyond the capacity of any mass transit system, especially that of PRT which has little capacity. With Plans to diversify mass transit comes talk of 'coercing' drivers out of their cars. Why not try to give drivers a comfortable transportation option they can feel good about using instead of 'coercing' them? That's what I mean by 'malicious'. Can supporters make a mass transit option that's comfortable enough to get motorists out of their cars?Rail transit is more comfortable than bus, especially for long distances. The threatening phrase 'coercing people into taking transit' is used by anti-transit car addicts. Don't panic. Link light rail's already being built. Seattle will have some sort of rail transit no matter what. Link LRT will fail because it missed its best chance to direct growth at South Center. The combined growth of station areas along MLK are less than that of South Center, and are close enough to downtown that transit needs could have been met with buses or a busway in the middle of MLK.
Give this PRT idea a little more than dismissive thought. If PRT encourages a culture of isolationists, this problem goes beyond transit options. Get on a bus, ferry or a train and you'll see 50 people who won't look each other in the eye. It's not just people in cars who dissociate from society. That's a societal problem, and building a train instead of a single-occupant transit system isn't going to solve that.[/Building comfortable mass transit systems is one way for individuals to relate. PRT, oh, forget it. There'll be fights in the lines waiting for the next pretend car leaving the pretend station.

prtsupporter

August 28th, 2005, 12:18 PM

I have given plenty of thought to its viability and conclude it's not viable. Costly, invasive infrastructure, too complicated to operate, too 'small scale' to serve enough people to justify the expense....especially that of PRT which has little capacity.PRT has high capacity. See this link (http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/capacity.html), but of course, you'll forget about it the next time you post anyway.

PRT is much less expensive (http://www.electric-bikes.com/prt-cost.htm) per mile than other proposed solutions.

Too complicated? Go to a PRT station, select a destination, pay, get in a car, get off at your station... I have a really hard time believing that this is even close to complicated...

PRT, oh, forget it. There'll be fights in the lines waiting for the next pretend car leaving the pretend station.You continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of a working PRT system. The likelihood of crowds gathering at PRT stations is very unlikely (http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/~prt-q.html#holdon).
The bigger picture with rail how it can help direct growth and development...Development at transfer points eventually brings services closer to home.A transit system that is simple to use and reduces the amount of time to travel to a destination effectively brings locations closer together, making development anywhere within that system's coverage accessible. Everywhere within a PRT system's coverage is easily accessible, and can be accessed faster than waiting for a train or bus, or sitting in traffic.

A few friends from out of town went with my wife and I to several places yesterday, and travelled by bus. We went to Pike Place Market, Seattle Center, and Safeco stadium. We started at the Northgate transit center. The inefficiencies of the current system that I noticed were: figuring out which bus to take that would get us where we wanted to go; wait times at the bus stops (over two hours total); and full buses (lots of stops, standing-room-only at times). The four of us would have had more time to enjoy sightseeing if we didn't have to walk to the bus stops where the bus we needed would arrive and if we didn't have to wait for the bus once we got to those stops.

When the game was over at the stadium, it took us about 10 minutes to get outside from our seats in the top section. We walked to the bus stop to get on a bus to go back to the Northgate TC, which happens to run once an hour at that time and would be about another 45 minutes before another would come. Since I don't have the entire bus route map and schedule memorized, I couldn't find any better solution.

Gomezticator

August 28th, 2005, 01:36 PM

Okay, Sirkulat, give me your idea of a successful mass transit plan. You hate PRT, hate cars, hate the Green Line and Link, so you must have a solid idea of what would make a good plan that we haven't seen yet. Make it reasonable i.e. it won't cost $30 billion, and fares won't cost so much to ride it that people won't use it.

Development at transfer points eventually brings services closer to home.

The problem is that people still work in the same places. Yes, you eventually get a closer grocery store or a closer group of restaurants, but if someone has a lucrative career downtown, they still work downtown after development has incurred unless they throw it all away to take a job nearby. Don't forget about the commuters. In the end, the system's success hinges on whether it benefits them enough to use it everyday.

Rail transit is more comfortable than bus, especially for long distances.

It also comes and goes more infrequently than buses and serves a much more limited range of locations, unless you cover the city in rail stations, meaning many will have to connect to buses anyway. That makes no difference in the outlying suburbs, as the distance is covered in a shorter time anyway, making rail a benefit, but for those nearer to the city it's use is limited.

The threatening phrase 'coercing people into taking transit' is used by anti-transit car addicts.

Ahem... a quote taken straight from the transportation goals section of the People's Waterfront Coalition (http://www.peopleswaterfront.org) website:

Reduce demand with dense, walkable neighborhoods and disincentives for excessive driving.

Not 'incentives to use mass transit' but 'disincentives for excessive driving'. Disincentives are a form of coercion, and the PWC is about as pro-transit as they get. They want to tear down the viaduct and not replace it, that's how pro-transit they are.

Can we get a city somewhere to prepare a formal estimate on what a PRT system would run? If I see a $600 billion estimated price tag in print, or proven evidence that a modern-day system would not practically work (as in, say, a prototype test system in a limited area somewhere in America), or any other evidence or valid arguments, I will absolve any consideration of PRT as any sort of option. And no, calling me a car-addict (even though I've repeatedly stated I use transit, do not drive and choose not to own a car... and I'M the troll?!), transit-hating troll doesn't count.

Sirkulat

August 28th, 2005, 08:18 PM

OK, Sirkulat, give us your idea of a mass transit plan. Read my posts 8,11,13 and those following that regard "The Seattle Circulator Plan", a low-cost monorail 'starter line' proposal (approx $500million). It should serve more people than the Greenline. Seattle voters approved monorail, not PRT. The Seattle Circulator Plan integrates monorail, light rail, streetcar, the trolleybus lines and regular bus lines to create convenient transfers where they are most needed - downtown. The model this plan formulates can be replicated elsewhere.

The People's Waterfront Coalition's proposal may sound rash about creating dis-incentives to auto use, but they are correct about not replacing I-99 with either a tunnel or an elevated structure. This group should be encouraged. They are Seattle's last great hope. They are GOLD.

PRTSupporter. You've fixed the links to your recommended webpages, but they do not impress. The stanchions and beams and stations suggested on the PRT website cannot be as inexpensive as you claim. And, the operation of your ficticious PRT system has too many flaws. Rent 'The Incredibles' and enjoy the pretention. Sorry, but PRT ain't gonna happen.

prtsupporter

August 28th, 2005, 09:06 PM

Read my posts 8,11,13 and those following that regard "The Seattle Circulator Plan", a low-cost monorail 'starter line' proposal (approx $500million).I've asked for some information that shows visually the route and stations for your plan, and how you came up with $500 million... I still haven't seen anything... Maybe we should all start calling this a ficticious plan.
You've fixed the links to your recommended webpages, but they do not impress. The stanchions and beams and stations suggested on the PRT website cannot be as inexpensive as you claim. And, the operation of your ficticious PRT system has too many flaws.These aren't "my" links. Other people have developed and maintained the pages that I've linked to, and they have put a lot of effort into their accuracy. I don't claim to have the engineering skills they have to determine the cost of these guideways, but some of the estimates have been done by professional engineers who do this for a living. I can't dispute their work. (BTW, what links don't work? In msg #25, you claim some links aren't working. The links in msg #22 and msg #24 have always worked for me, and the messages haven't been edited... ??)

The Seattle Circulator Plan integrates ... lines to create convenient transfers...You're still on the "transfer are good" argument? Getting off one transit vehicle to WAIT to get on another does not contribute to an efficient transit system. Direct-to-destination, without stops, is the most efficient.

You keep saying that "PRT won't work," but every argument you make is not true and has been shown to be inaccurate in some way. Repeating the same arguments isn't going to make them true...

Sirkulat

August 29th, 2005, 10:58 AM

[QUOTE]I've asked for some information that shows visually the route and stations for your plan, and how you came up with $500 million... I still haven't seen anything... Maybe we should all start calling this a ficticious plan.The initial plan was called "The Circulator Monorail Plan". It was submitted to Sound Transit board meeting in Spring 2000 and long posted at Left Bank Books. After the Nasquilly earthquake, while ETC was planning the West Seattle-to-Ballard route, I integrated a "Waterfront Route" into the initial plan and reorganized the downtown trolleybus system. Maggi Fimia, Transportation Alternatives, the FTA, journalists at the Times and the P-I, radio and TV wonks, I don't know how many others have copies but it's been submitted plenty. I've surveyed the routes many times. The plan may be theoretical, but it is less fictional than Buck Rogers PRT.

The $500 million figure comes from comparing the Circulator Monorail to the proposed Greenline: length of track: 3.5 vs 14 miles, scale of track: single-beam vs double-beam, number of cars: 6 vs 13-19, number of stations: 10 vs 13-19, simplicity of construction with single-beam trackway. You can call it a rough estimate, but hey, back when the first proposals for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct were hovering around $11 - $15 billion, I was saying less than $4 billion was possible. My estimating skills aren't bad. You're still on the "transfer are good" argument? Getting off one transit vehicle to WAIT to get on another does not contribute to an efficient transit system. Direct-to-destination, without stops, is the most efficient.This is where you don't get it, PRTguy; in the development consideration. By eliminating transfers, and minimizing transit stops, PRT reduces development potential to the least number of districts. Bus systems make this same error, as I explained previously.

PRT will cost a fortune, its infrastructure is a monumental imposition, their cars will tangle and bottleneck hopelessly, and will not be able to serve transit users effectively. Your pretend PRT proposal is nowhere near as practical as the Circulator Monorail and the Seattle Circulator Plan.

prtsupporter

August 29th, 2005, 01:35 PM

The $500 million figure comes from comparing the Circulator Monorail to the proposed Greenline...My estimating skills aren't bad.So, this is your guess at the price? It sounds like you don't have any training or authority to determine this number, other than "I compared it to some other plan, and this is what my guess is."

PRT will cost a fortune, its infrastructure is a monumental imposition, their cars will tangle and bottleneck hopelessly, and will not be able to serve transit users effectively.Here (http://www.acprt.org/PRTSkeptics.cfm) is another site that discusses some of these issues.

You can keep spewing unfounded arguments about how you think PRT would work. Your "plan" seems to be so abstract that you can't even show a route or station locations on a map. How can 10 stations provide enough coverage for a city the size of Seattle to serve transit users effectively?

By eliminating transfers, and minimizing transit stops, PRT reduces development potential to the least number of districts.A system that provides quick and easy transport to any of dozens or hundreds of stations allows any area within the system to be easily developed and utilized. PRT system expansion is so unintrusive to the existing system that coverage of new areas can be added as necessary to accomodate new development. PRT allows development to happen where it's convenient for the development, not where it's convenient for the transit system.

Sirkulat

August 29th, 2005, 09:54 PM

[QUOTE]So, this is your guess at the price? It sounds like you don't have any training or authority to determine this number, other than "I compared it to some other plan, and this is what my guess is."Yeah, so? A simple comparison can be a valid estimate. I have enough training to visualize how a PRT system will have monumentally imposing infrastructure, incredible costs, and operational difficulties. Oh, but you disagree. Well then, that makes us alike; the difference between our proposals being that mine is a relatively inexpensive monorail more like what Seattlers voted for, and yours is a pipe dream that far fewer people take seriously. Seattle will not be build a PRT system.Your "plan" seems to be so abstract that you can't even show a route or station locations on a map. How can 10 stations provide enough coverage for a city the size of Seattle to serve transit users effectively?I've produced dozens of maps and submitted them to many agencies, organizations and individuals including Paul Allen's Vulcan Ventures and the Gates Foundation. The Seattle Circulator may be only 3.5 miles of single-track added to the existing line, but each of its 10 stations is an important destination. It ties into Link LRT at Westlake Mall and Convention Place station, thereby providing a convenient transfer for those riders to reach these destinations. Who's got the better idea? I explained the route in detail in earlier posts, but PRTguy didn't bother to lay it out on a map.

prtsupporter

September 12th, 2005, 01:29 PM

Here's a page that directly addresses the land use/transit oriented development issue: http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/landuse.html

Basically, it says: "With PRT ANY neighborhood can be a transit village, right now, without having to accept new, densifying station-area development."

Here's an interesting discussion of the failure probabilities of various parts of a PRT system. http://www.skyloop.org/cals/rebuttal/06-07-Failure-Modes-%26-Effects-Analysis.pdf

Sirkulat

September 17th, 2005, 01:20 PM

Robert Jamieson's Saturday column dithers about monorail costs and says next to nothing about its dubious engineering. Still, while calling for the Greenline project to end, he leaves a door open for a "city monorail", put together by a new, more responsible team. Hmm. Is he showing an interest in the low-cost, low-impact "Circulator Monorail" proposal? Since 2000, this proposal suggests extending the historic monorail line a mere '3.5 miles of single-track' in loops on each end to form a circulator between Lower Queen Anne and First and Capital Hills. If so, thanks, Robert, for the mention. How about an article on the Circulator Monorail and its companion, The Seattle Circulator Plan? Eh? Huh? Huh? Eh? Huh? Well?

There's some PRTrocks person calling for a 72 station PRT "starter system" for Seattle. I wonder if PRTrocks has any idea about station cost and impact.

The Circulator Monorail has 10 stations, all serving important, high demand, central city destinations: Westlake Mall, Central Library, Harborview, Univ of Seattle/Swedish Hosp, SCCC, and Convention Place Station on the South Loop. Four stations and a maintenance facility 'atop' the Mercer Street parking garage, circle Seattle Center, (rather than bulldozing through), on the North Loop. Two lengths of the route flyover I-5 in a highly visable and dramatic fashion. Imagine that.

Who am I kidding? After 5 years of advocating for the Circulator Monorail plan, the only people who'll give it the least attention is some equally stressed out PRT guy with the most far-fetched ideas.