In reality, the feds won't really commit to the "full funding grant
agreement" until lrt HAS been shoved quite a ways down our throats,
such as the tens of millions of dollars, if not more than $100 million,
spent on studies and process already spent. Once that has been signed
the feds and "responsible" officials, either the line is built at any
cost or the $275 million that the feds contribute must be paid back.
Quite a deal for something that will reduce congestion in twenty years
by less than one percent and air pollution by less than one percent.
I expect that so much extra congestion and pollution will be caused during
the construction period that it will be more than what is saved in twenty
years of operation.
As far as prt being a feeder to lrt, I expect that you will hear from
proponents such as Steven that the average wait between trains (as you
transfer from prt to lrt) will be about the same amount of time as would
have been needed to continue to your destination on prt. Not to mention
the time it would take for lrt to actually travel the rest of the distance.
Remember that lrt will average less than 22 mph.
Of course, the lrt crowd would see that a prt implementation would make it
very obvous how poor a solution lrt is to most problems it is supposed to
address.
Right now, the lrt forces are gearing up to shove a central corridor lrt
(along I-94 or University) down our throats. How about prt along there?
But I think that prt folks have said that you need to install a good chunk
of network to make it pay off, that a corridor approach like lrt is too
limiting.
I have mentioned a site maintained by a University of Washington professor
that covers several alternative visions of intelligent transportation
systems, including more types of prt than Taxi-2000. Be advised that there
are some projects out there that seem not to be grounded in reality, like the
one who technical types informed me that auto air conditioners and heaters
run solely on electricity and thus could plug into the carrier platforms of
their system that you would drive you car onto to be whisked through the
sky at 60-100 mph. I advised them to go to a car dealer (since it was fairly
obvious that they did not own a car) and ask for an introduction to what
lies under the car's hood.
As far as why there isn't prt installed and running, well, there are many
things that might come into play. Insurance and liability, the industrial/
planning complex that pushes rail, the government agencies that would see
the importance of the mass transit system diminish (and thus their own
importance based on the number of employees and budget). I have read that
a Swedish study showed that prt was a popular idea, but I haven't heard
that they have signed a contract.
Steven mentioned 85 mpg for prt, but autos, in limited numbers, are already
approaching 70 mpg. Technology will continue apace.
Bruce Gaarder
Highland Park Saint Paul
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jon Kelland wrote:
> This seems to be a case that if in impressive enough
> test track were develpoed with reasonable costs, it
> would catch the popular imagination and sell itself.
> Instead, we have LRT being rammed down our throats,
> without having federal dollars committed as of yet.
>
> I suppose that any PRT development at this point will
> have to work off of the assumption the LRT will be in
> place (at least this initial line) and work as feeders
> and then cover the rest of the metro area...which
> might not be a bad deal (for the taxi 200 folks, not
> the general public) since the (assumably) private
> investment will work well off of the publicly financed
> line from downtaown to the airport and mall.
