At 11:08 AM 10/5/2000 -0500, Bruce Gaarder wrote:
>Steven gave you some math one how many people prt could carry in theory,
>from a game. At a rate of 120 cars per hour, with many going a fair
>distance, what is the total number of cars needed, since you would also be
>expected to serve the normal system needs as well as the sports fans?
120 cars per hour? I'm not sure where that came from. I mentioned loading
up to 3600 people per hour, in 1800 cars. If all we had was a downtown
system, this would require 360 cars, since each round trip (picking up
someone, dropping them off, returning) would take about 12 minutes.
Normal downtown traffic would have longer waits under these conditions
- but still reasonable waits.
I have specific cost estimates for a system with 45 cars per mile for a
7.5 mile system, with 2 stations per mile. The total capital cost
estimated in 1999 dollars would be $72 million. The downtown track
I talk about on my web site has 9 miles, and has more like 3 stations
per mile. Multiply by 9/7.5 to get a 9-mile cost of $86.4 million.
Station cost is approximately $425,000 per station, so the extra 9
stations would come in at about 3.8 million. We'd probably incur
extra costs for high-capacity stations like those around the metrodome,
so tack on an extra 10 million to support those. There's a $100 million
system that would do the job. It would have 9*45 = 405 vehicles available.
However, it's questionable whether we would have demand (outside of
sports games) to support such a system economically, and we may in
fact want to start with a much lower number of vehicles for a lower
capital and operating cost - then add more vehicles as demand increases.
(That's why I still feel that $90 million is a very safe number for
such a starter system. We can always add more later to meet demand,
for small incremental costs. Just taking the number of vehicles down
to 30/mile would reduce capital costs more than 10 million.)
It's difficult to get specific about such issues unless we have a more
specific proposal. I'm talking here more about theoretical maximums
- what the system could grow to. Emptying a stadium during normal
peak usage would be the most challenging thing we could do with any
transportation system.
>I had made a comment about the lrt folks not being likely to want prt as
>feeders. I guess that I didn't express it well enough, since Steven
>didn't see my point. Let's say that you use prt to feed lrt at Franklin,
>Lake, 38th, 46th, Minnehaha Park, and whatever the other station is near
>the VA hospital. If these prt lines extend west across town to Hennepin
>and there is just one north-south prt line, say along Nicollet, the time
>to take prt west from the lrt to Nicollet and north to downtown is probably
>less than taking the lrt to downtown from that stop.
I agree - my response was that PRT would make a decent feeder, and improve
light rail service, if it were only available in the downtown area, and
possibly going other places that light rail doesn't go. Once it connects
with other destinations along the light rail line, I agree, it would make
light rail obselete.
Since Twin Cities transportation planners are stuck on rail and skittish
about new technologies, I talk about such an incremental approach to
introducing PRT. Since not everyone is convinced that PRT will take off
and cover the entirety of south Minneapolis, I focus on the short term
gain of improved congestion (and air quality) downtown and the possibility
of delivering rail passengers to downtown locations such as the Target
Center and the Convention Center.
--
Steven C. Anderson 612-722-6658 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Independence Party Candidate for Minnesota Senate, District 62
http://www.SteveAnderson.org/
