Tuesday, June 19, 2007

RTA remarks and follow-up


To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"william wendt" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Wed, 16 May 2007 13:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
[CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

Semi-extemporaneous remarks made by William F. Wendt, Jr. to the board of the Regional Transportation Authority of Northern Illinois, April 5, 2007

CHAIRMAN REILLY: The motion carries. Item 3 is the public comment segment of the meeting. The secretary will call the name of the individual scheduled to speak during today's public comment segment. When called, please step to the podium, state your name and organization you are representing, if any, and your city and county of residence for the court reporter. Your comments will be part of the official record of the meeting. Speakers will be given three minutes to address the board. When your three minutes are up, the secretary will announce your time is up, and we will call the next speaker. Will the secretary please call the first speaker.

MS. MACLENNAN: Mr. William Wendt.

MR. WENDT: Yes. My name is William Wendt, W-e-n-d-t, and I live in Chicago. About 15 years ago, the RTA issued a page-and-a-half handout which announced the winner and runner-up of the PRT technology demonstration contest. There were twelve entrants in that contest. But -- and you would think that each of them would have warranted four or five pages of evaluation and description. But I made several Freedom of Information requests. That was all I got, was this page-and-a-half handout. Well, the winner of that contest did not work. They tried something else, and the RTA wound up blowing something like $80 million before the thing was finally put to rest.

And since then, the RTA has continued to spend, check your budgets, several $100 million a year on one technology that hasn't been substantially improved in over a century and another technology whose last major improvement was a half century ago. But one of the entrants in that contest that I am familiar with, and I'm not familiar with the other 11, which is maybe my fault, but it's awfully hard to get any kind of recognition for different transit technologies. I have been trying for about 20 years.

But one of those technologies can do an awful lot more for an awful lot less than existing technologies, and I have yet to see any kind of acknowledgement by any transit agency of this technology's existence. And since then, the CTA has had -- has gone -- has undertaken three half billion-dollar projects to rebuild elevateds, that century-old technology that hasn't been improved in -- substantially improved -- I mean, the ones a hundred years ago were a lot more fun, actually. But this technology could have replaced -- could have been put in place instead and had a much more effective, much less expensive, much less disruptive transit system.

Now, I heard (RTA executive director) Mr. Schlickman say in a meeting about a month ago that you can't do anything about past planning, which is basically true. But present planning has a way of becoming past planning pretty quickly. And you want to spend -- you know, what's the bill for getting CTA in good shape? Well, take a half billion off of that, which is -- well, a half a billion would buy a whole new CTA bus system. But the rest of it, whether your call it six billion a year or eight billion, or whatever, would go -- then go for the once great third rail. And to plow that kind of money into this basically obsolete technology at something like spending 60,000 or 80,000 to fix the old jalopy--

MS. MACLENNAN: Sorry, Mr. Wendt--

MR. WENDT: Yeah, well there's lots of--

MS: MACLENNAN: -- your time is up.

MR. WENDT: Yeah. There's lot's of snazzy cars available for 60 or 80,000 or for considerably less.

MS. MACLENNAN: Time.

CHAIRMAN REILLY: Thank you.


To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"Eric Pancer" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Wed, 16 May 2007 15:33:52 -0500
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

Please peddle your goods elsewhere.Moderator: really, do we have to be subjected to this nut?
On 5/16/07, william wendt < wholelephant@ yahoo.com> wrote:
Semi-extemporaneous remarks made by William F. Wendt, Jr. to the board of the Regional Transportation Authority of Northern Illinois, April 5, 2007


(snip)


Date:
Wed, 16 May 2007 14:58:58 -0700 (PDT)
From:
"Harvey Kahler" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks
To:
"William Wendt"

William,
Make your point.

Stay on your point with details.

I have no idea where you were headed when you were cut off; and I suspect the board didn't either.

I have trouble with this too.

Harvey



william wendt wrote:
Semi-extemporaneous remarks made by William F. Wendt, Jr. to the board of the Regional Transportation Authority of Northern Illinois, April 5, 2007

  (snip)


To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"Larry M" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Wed, 16 May 2007 22:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

First of all Mr. Wendt is entitled to speak his opinions even if we do not agree with them. I don't agree with him. Next to the monorail PRT is a usless at best in anything and anywhere with only one exception. PRT would do well in the latest trend in open air shopping areas. We have a number of them that cover a very large area - far more so than the so called indoor shopping malls. PRT would do well there in a system much like that of the Montreal 1967 World's Fair where shopper could go from one section to the other without having to use their cars. That makes a lot of sense.

But the very idea of having one of those devices running by my home or anyone else's is totally repugnant. If I lived in a upper or upper middle class suburb would I want one of those running on my front yard? I think not. Who would want one of those elevated devices in a neighorhood? Do you really think that we would want some "station" in the middle of a section where housing was in the upper-bracket? And if we had a PRT in a community we would then be faced to build parking areas near these so called stations. Or would you prefer a PRT station at each and every corner? I really do not care how skinny the support posts might be to hold up a PRT or if they are covered during the warm months with some kind of ivy; they're still going to be an eyesore.

Sorry, but we have what is called feeder bus service that runs on the ground and takes people to and from the train stations. It usually works well. And a feeder bus can always have either a fixed route or a DAR depending on conditions. Can PRT do that?

What Mr. Wendy appears to be seeking is the total renovation of our public transportation system from duo-rail to what he considers as being far more efficient. How can something be far more efficient when not only the replacement cost would be high but so would the cost of building it? Consider the simple task of a switch on a regular duo-rail system and the bulk required on PRT or monorail to switch routes. Which technology would cost more? Show us a cost per mile in building a replacement for a duo-rail passenger system including the removal of any old system, land costs for the new system and what could be a legal quagmire in trying to build any new system in an area that does not want it. Please come up with factual numbers and not something that you are guessing at. Then tell us how you arrived at those numbers allowing over a period of the time to replace and rebuild a system the inflation and potential cost overuns. And do give us your source for that information to "get rid of the jalopy".

Duo-rail will be around long after everyone on this group has become ashes. What we will see is an ongoing effort to not abandon the technology but to improve it.

Finally, as for calling Mr. Wendt a "nut" I find that to be more offensive than anything he might have said regardless of whether you or I agree with him. We have had a lot of nuts around in our history. The Wright brothers might have been considered nuts. How about those nuts that thought the world was not flat? But here is a "new rule" (or an old one): treat other people in this group with the same level of respect you wish to be treated. We have had some great discussions where the parties do not necessarily agree with each other. At times things can get rather testy but there is no place for name calling in this group because you or someone else may not agree with the other person. We have some very intelligent and knowledgable members on this group (I need not name them). As I have said before, it is the discussion and often disagreements that has made this group one that I am proud to moderate. Let's keep it at that level.

Larry - moderator ChicagoTransit
----- Original Message ----From: Eric Pancer To: CHICAGOTRANSIT@ yahoogroups. comSent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 3:33:52 PMSubject: Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks
Please peddle your goods elsewhere.

Moderator: really, do we have to be subjected to this nut?
On 5/16/07, william wendt < wholelephant@ yahoo.com> wrote:   (above)


To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"Eric Pancer" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2007 00:15:13 -0500
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

On 5/17/07, Larry M <minnman554212000@ yahoo.com> wrote:

Finally, as for calling Mr. Wendt a "nut" (snip) As I have said before, it is the discussion and often disagreements that has made this group one that I am proud to moderate. Let's keep it at that level.

So then, we are encouraged to opine unsolicited, long-winded commentary on a poor system. This is good to know; thank you for clarification.

Mr. Wendt, I apologize, please carry on. I look forward to objecting to each and every point you make in further peddling of your goods.

- Eric


To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
ajk100@webtv.net Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2007 10:10:02 -0500
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

For once I have to defend Mr Wendt. This particular item (unlike some previous, particularly involving monorails) deals with Chicago transportation directly. You might not agree with the man's take on an issue, but the issue is local and pertinent in this case.

Andre

To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
ajk100@webtv.net Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2007 10:21:05 -0500
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

Having actually seen a working monorail (in Vegas), I do not see how switching is that big an issue. That line has crossovers at each end,plus at least two midroute. Work just fine, every few minutes at the terminals. Look totally different and work totally different than a duorail xover, with a section of beam moving side to side, but seems to have about same level of reliability. Vegas had lots of problems starting up, with system losing track of trains and parts falling off trains, but the permanent way seemed to function just fine. Personally I would also say that the structure is definitely less intrusive than a regular L structure would be. There are several locations I can think of where a duorail structure might not even have been possible. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with a monorail, especially in an all-new operation where compatibility with anything existing is not an issue. In Chicago, a monorail route would be an orphan, but say in Jacksonville FL it is perfectly appropriate.

Andre.

To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"Adam H. Kerman" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2007 10:38:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

At 10:10am -0500, 05/17/07, ajk100@webtv. net wrote:
> For once I have to defend Mr Wendt. This particular item (unlike some
> previous, particularly involving monorails)
> deals with Chicago transportation directly. You might not agree with the
> man's take on an issue, but the issue is local and pertinent in this case

Bill Wendt isn't a monorail advocate! The fixed guideway system that he favors is dual-beam or I-beam overhead suspended! The guideway would not meet the Monorail Society's definition and in no way resembles the Alweg-built system for Disneyland..I always read Bill Wendt's material, too, and have been for 25 years.Why, some people have suggested that I rant, if you can believe that.

To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"Snatch N. Grabster" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2007 10:08:33 -0600
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

The people on this list don't have unlimited time to read endless,  repetitive posts about the same obsessions certain authors here seem to have. There is a cost involved on the reader end, and whoever posts messages needs to take that into account. We aren't simply a captive audience to be taken advantage of at will.

See rule 4.


The Core Rules of Netiquette:

Rule 1: Remember the Human

Rule 2: Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that youfollow in real life

Rule 3: Know where you are in cyberspace

Rule 4: Respect other people's time and bandwidth

Rule 5: Make yourself look good online

Rule 6: Share expert knowledge

Rule 7: Help keep flame wars under control

Rule 8: Respect other people's privacy

Rule 9: Don't abuse your power

Rule 10: Be forgiving of other people's mistakes


Whether we agree with each other or not, everyone should strive to be brief and avoid sending messages we've already read 100 times before.

To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
ajk100@webtv.net Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Thu, 17 May 2007 11:13:33 -0500
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] RTA remarks

If you don't feel like reading something, delete it. Really very simple.

Andre

To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"Al Reinschmidt" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Fri, 18 May 2007 06:38:42 -0000
Subject:
[CHICAGOTRANSIT] Re: RTA remarks
 
The point that you miss is the passenger loading per foot of vehicle on modern mono rail vehicles comes no where as efficient as on a typical dual rail vehicle, if there is a tunnel involved costs are almost doubled, have a shot of the short tunnel on the Alweg type monorail in western Tokyo that I ride frequently somewhere, CTA sized cars with a tube that is almost double the size to our subway. Please recognize economics vs. glitz, monorail looses on the economics side unless its a small scale system like Jacksonville, every time,(imagine a scratch built system to replace the L as a monorail,) the current technology isn't there to do it. Precisely why every new extensive RT system (with considerable study) in the world has rejected monorail.

--- In CHICAGOTRANSIT@ yahoogroups. com, ajk100@... wrote:
>> Having actually seen a working monorail (in Vegas), (snip)
> but say in Jacksonville FL
> it is perfectly appropriate.

> > Andre

To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"william wendt" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Fri, 25 May 2007 14:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] Re: RTA remarks

Jackie Gleason told a story some forty-five years ago about a couple that lived next to a railroad track, where a train would roar by every 3AM. One night it did not run and they jumped out of bed, wondering "What was that?"

And here I am, scratching my head and wondering how often anyone has actually disagreed with anything I actually said here. And for all the persiflage my RTA remarks have inspired, there still has not been any explicit disagreement with the notion of an overdue evaluation of technologies. That is what was said, wasn't it? And going unchallenged?

Or maybe we should just pour billions into the once great third rail without checking anything else? Anyone want to come out and say that?

Maybe it is urban legend, but the story goes around that a patent clerk quit a century ago because he thought everything had been invented. In any event, it is considered very funny today. It just couldn't happen in this day and age. Or could it?

Let's clear up the technical proposition first. Defining a problem is supposed to be half of solving it, at least in technical circles.

We have to get our people pods from here to there. In Chicago, for purposes of discussion and comparison, they tend to have 50 seated passengers and maybe 100 standing. We can put flanged steel wheels under them, along with motors, springs, bolsters, sideframes, brakes, etc. These together are quite heavy, complicated, and expensive, both to build and maintain. The cost of such a vehicle is about three times a comparable people pod on rubber tires with an engine, etc. They also generate a lot of noise and concentrated stresses. The thumbnail area of contact between wheel and rail is a hallmark of efficiency when it comes to hauling 10,000 tons of coal or grain, but it creates severe problems in passenger transport.

On a mainline railroad the people pod needs 1 million lb. buff and draft for safety reasons and complicated, expensive air brakes for regulatory reasons.

Under the wheels we need complicated, expensive, disruptive track and bridge structures.

Or we can put something OVER the people pod, a glorified electromagnet known as a Linear Induction Motor. There is not much more to it than the grade school science experiment in which the kid wraps a wire around a nail, that is, except size, some hairy mathematics and sophisticated electronic controls.

And then you put it UNDER a standard steel beam, that any old steel mill can crank out. Maybe you put a little extra copper in the alloy to improve conductivity and corrosion resistance. About 3/8" under the beam the LIM generates TWO magnetic forces, one toward the beam, perpendicular to the line of travel. With some fancy alternating current, it induces eddy currents in the beam and the resulting magnetic forces generate thrust along the beam and line of travel. The ratio is about ten to one, quite convenient for vehicles with standing passengers that can only accelerate about 1/10 g anyway.

It has caster wheels under the beam to keep it from clamping up and some over the flange to keep it from falling or to allow movement in yards, shops, etc. The cost of the vehicle is about the same as the rubber tire people pod, again, about one-third the cost of the steel wheel variety. The cost of the structure, including some glorified light poles every 80' or so to support the overhead beam, is about one-tenth that of a duorail structure. The system, altogether, will do anything third rail can do except better and cheaper, without making a lot of noise or blocking a lot of light.

If so, then the third rail is a museum piece or a security blanket. If a museum piece, let's go back to the old 4000s with the air brakes and the compressor going thunk-thunk- thunk-thunk. Or at least to the railfan seats.

Maybe life is incomprehensible without it. Maybe it is a fixture of the firmament. I do recall thinking some four and a half decades ago, after running around the Illinois Central for a year or so, that the black Geeps and orange and brown E-units would be around forever. But I caught myself even then, and wouldn't they be sights for sore eyes today.

Maybe finance is the real problem, say, when people take a "free" federally funded project as coming down from the mountain on tablets of stone. Suppose, however, the cost of a half-billion project was to be spread over a half million taxpayers in the catchment area, or, an average of a grand apiece. Then I come along and show how the problem could be solved for a quarter of the cost and create a facility that would be useful 168 hours a week, not just ten. (I have not posted that proposal here yet, but it was printed in the March 23, 1994 Lerner papers and passed out recently with my "I tried to tell you so" letters.)

Considering the regard some people have for my impressions, it might be impertinent of me to express my impression of some of the suggestions my RTA remarks have inspired, even if not expressly disagreeing with them. But, if they are to affect my perceptions, my impressions are quite pertinent. Quite frankly, I found them reminiscent of that scene in a Shirley Temple movie in which the seven year old queen reads off her a string of her latest edicts.

If I have not missed anything, I still have yet to see any explicit, specific disagreement with my comments some weeks ago on transit not having a conscience, functioning at the age of reason, or not avoiding train wrecks, literal and figurative.

And if someone ever questions your adulthood, it is up to you not to prove him right, right there, on the spot. Try to respond in an adult manner, in particular, get beyond your own personal perceptions and preferences.

This is, after all, an adult activity, with real world, long time consequences. The transit system you save might be your own. The society you save from a Soviet style collapse might be your own too.

If you want to disagree with any of the above, feel free, but please be specific. And do not call it condescending when I overestimate your intelligence. I am smart enough to do that, but not smart enough not to.

--- Al Reinschmidt wrote:  (above)


To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"Eric Pancer" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Fri, 25 May 2007 16:41:00 -0500
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] Re: RTA remarks

On 5/25/07, william wendt <wholelephant@ yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
let's go back to the old 4000s with the air brakes and the compressor going thunk-thunk- thunk-thunk. Or at least to the railfan seats.
[snip]This is the best thing I have ever heard anyone suggest.


To:
CHICAGOTRANSIT@yahoogroups.com
From:
"william wendt" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Date:
Fri, 25 May 2007 15:18:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: [CHICAGOTRANSIT] Re: RTA remarks

Yea, at least they can plow snow too.

How about the old electric locomotives as well?


posted by bcbe @ 2:55 PM   0 Comments