The Sky Loop - Opinion

Link Up with the Sky Loop

Opinion

Below are the opinions of visitors to this website regarding the Sky Loop project. What do you think of the Sky Loop? Leave your thoughts on this Opinion page.

If you have just returned from the form for submitting your opinion, you will need to click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button of your web browser to see your opinion posted here.

Last step forward Cincinnati's Queen City
Metro made was when it moved from
horse-drawn buses to gasoline powered
engines. It's been resting on its laurels ever
since.

The way to achieving a truly comprehensive
public transportation system is using the best
form of transportation for a specific need,
situation or location.

Around here, meaning Cincinnati, things move
forward so slowly they might as well be going
backwards. If someone doesn't put a stake in
the ground and start something...anything, the
powers that be, OKI, SORTA, etc.will still be in
"studying" "the best alternative", well into the
next century.

The Sky Loop idea is cute and very Jetsonish,
but of very limited usefullness unless it is
proposed for a very specific (read: limited)
need. As part of a major, comprehensive
public transportation system, it may serve
some purpose.
Cloaudia
Cincinnati, OH USA - Monday, June 25, 2001 at 19:08:09 (EDT)

I wonder how someone in a wheelchair would
use one of these things.
Claudia Krysiak
Cincinnati, OH USA - Monday, June 25, 2001 at 18:35:11 (EDT)

How do you satisfy everyone? Its not possible. The real issue is how do you maximize happiness for the most amount of people? Now happiness in relation to transportation and society is almost an oxymoron, however everyone out there thinks that if they were in charge, they would be able to fix the worlds transportation problems. As a transportation engineering student...I too am in that catagory. Now let logic find the solution.

A professor once told me that the "problem" of transportation within a city will always exist and that the "solutions" which cause taxpayers billions of dollars don't even solve a fraction of the problem.

Take LRT (like in the City of Calgary) for instance. It carrys only 3% of the city's population, but costs nearly 10 times the amount that cars do/km. Now how does society, and government for that matter, accept such a modal choice? It generaly does society more harm then good. And what about adding more roads? More overpasses? Here is your problem with that - LAND USE. The major costs attributed to road infastructure expansions are buying the land. Land which could be valuable green space, or even Indian land, or Forests. These expansions are too expensive in everyway imaginable.

PRT. Sounds futuristic, because it is futuristic. So is Virtual Reality, or even the internet. Lets look at the benifits of PRT for a second.

Non-stop travel
Minimal Pollution
Vehicle waits for you, you don't wait for the vehicle
Minimal noise
Flexible design
Sustainable
Ablity to expand at minimal cost and without interupting operations
Maximum safety
Personal travel (like the car)
Minimized Building costs, O&M costs (not to mention the societal costs listed above)

And most importantly, if half of these benifits listed here can exist in a fully operational system, then the attraction away from the car should be significant (greater then 3% at least) and a great reduction in congestion should be expected. And isn't this what every commuter realy wants? The fact that it doesn't pollute, make noise, or crash are just added bonus'.

This is where I wish I wasn't a student, and I had 10 years of transpo. experience under my belt so that I could truly be active in the process of getting this system up and running in the city of Calgary. If my intuition is correct, after the first city takes the initiative of building a fully operational PRT system, and the results come pouring in, then a ripple effect will occur within North American cities.

Historically, people have always been afraid of revolutionary ideas and technology. I beg you not to be one of those who are blinded with the present. You beg for a transportation solution - well here it is in front of your noses.

Sounds crazy, eh?

Ryan Oakley
Calgary, AB Canada - Thursday, May 31, 2001 at 11:46:07 (EDT)

I think the SkyLoop concept would have the best chance of succeeding when compared to other choices like light rail. The SkyLoop system seems to be the least intrusive and yet the most flexible of the choices. Usage fees could be combined into the Metro Bus passes so that customers could use either system to suppliment their transportation needs. And, as the system proves itself, additional miles could be built to service areas not well served by the bus system. For example, cross-town bus routes are far and few between as most routes run a north-south direction into and out of Downtown. A SkyLoop system could also be used to promote the tourist attractions of the city by connecting major attractions (Riverfront area, Music Hall, Natural History Museum, Zoo, Newport Aquarium, etc.) into one cohesive transportation network.
Terrence D. Evans
Lawrenceburg, In USA - Tuesday, May 15, 2001 at 09:34:00 (EDT)

To simply triage the stillbirth of the Cincinnati subway system as depression related deficiencies is a euphamism of Machiavellian proportions. Many insidious self interest idiosyncracies surround the demise of Cincinnati transit. In the 1860's Cincinnati was chosen as the prime location for the major rail hub in the United States- local powers to be insisted that the "trusty riverboat" was to be a periennial, and this "new-fangeled rail contraption" was destined to be a flash in the pan. As a result, a sleepy pioneer mudflat called Chicago capitalized on the vacant opportunity- and as they say: "the rest is history."
Bill
cincinnati, oh usa - Monday, January 29, 2001 at 15:16:49 (EST)

When I read about the abandoned uncompleted subway line in Cincinnati, I thought it was a total waste of taxpayers money. I never have visited Ohio and Kentucky, but I was surprized that there is a subway line in Cincinnati. Then I read the reasons why it was constructed and why it failed. Back in the early 20th century, there was an overwheming and growing demand for more public transportation but the Great Depression, the start of the automobile age and a declining population has made the subway a luxury. Cincinnati was and still is too small and too spacious too support a commuter train system.
I believe that the proposed skyloop is akin to the unsuccessful Cincinnati subway. A 7500 car garage for future skywalk commuters and three person monorail cars might not discourage more people from using the automobile and the automobile is not likely to disappear in the far future because of its convinice. Why not have government offices open and close after rush hours. This would ease traffic conjestion and is way cheaper than the proposal skyloop.
greg hyslop
St.John's, Newfoundland Canada - Saturday, January 27, 2001 at 15:15:23 (EST)

...concerning the validity of "light-rail" (diet-rail) at www.cincyring.com .
Bill
cincinnati , oh usa - Saturday, January 27, 2001 at 10:44:55 (EST)

John, and others, there is much discussion concerning the validity of
Bill
Cincinnati, oh USA - Saturday, January 27, 2001 at 10:41:37 (EST)

The perceived problems raised by John Schneider and LRP Nawdry either all have solutions in the Sky Loop system. The problem is trying to address them all in this format.

We would challenge you both to study carefully how PRT would in fact work, as I suspect you have not taken the time to do so.

In any case, for Mr. Schneider at least, this will happen in time as part of the Central Area Loop Study Committee, of which we are both members.

While I guess we could continue to debate on our Opinion page, perhaps John Schneider would like to create a similar page on his LRT website? It would be interesting to see what opinion he would get of the proposed I-71 Corridor LRT proposal which he promotes there.

As to who favors the Sky Loop in Cincinnati, the jury is still out on that one.

Chip Tappan, Chairman
The Sky Loop Committee

Chip Tappan
Cincinnati, OH USA - Monday, January 22, 2001 at 18:35:23 (EST)

In regards to John Schneiders comments below...
Just because a PRT vehicle has to go up and over a skyway doesn't mean the entire system has to built on the 3rd level. It is most likely all stations would be built on the 2nd level. Also, the elevator used in PRT stations is a hydraulic "push up" type, not a cable type that "pulls up" the elevator cabin. This is less expensive and doesn't require as much space. In nearly all circumstances, there will only be need of one elevator. This is because most able bodied customers would prefer to walk the one flight of stairs since it is quicker/healthier. Lastly, if for any reason the passenger doesn't like the appearance/odor of the vehicle, they can hit the "reject" button located at the boarding area. The vehicle would then automatically leave the station and proceed to the maintenance bldg for cleaning. A new vehicle would take its place for the passenger to board.
Brian Finley
Stillwater, MN USA - Monday, January 22, 2001 at 12:40:53 (EST)

Bob:

Notwithstanding the obvious problems with the horizontal throughput of the system, another bottleneck may be the vertical circulation. This is because the system has to be built at the third level so it can pass over Cincinnati's second-level skywalk system. With an aging population, fewer and fewer people will want to walk to and from the third level of a building to use the PRT, so elevator capacity well in excess of ADA requirements seems necessary. In order to move the number of people you're talking about, you will certainly need more than one elevator per station. If these are high-speed elevators with productivity matching the projected boarding rates, they will not only be very expensive to buy and to maintain but they will also require a machine room one floor above at the fourth floor level - inside the building. Is it likely that a builing owner will give up portions of four levels of street-fronting space to accommodate a bank of elevators, plus the geometry needed to build the berths for all the stored vehicles on the third floor? I wouldn't. You could say, I suppose, that PRT passengers would simply use the building's existing elevators, but most buildings have no spare elevator capacity at peak. Building tenants will object to non-tenants tying up their elevators. It's a big problem.

The noise from the elevator machine room over the top of the elevator shaft will devalue leaseable space around it on the fourth floor. Elevator mechanics will need to get to the machine room on the fourth floor, requiring a corridor to it. This corridor will consume and cut up leaseable space, causing lost rent and diminishing the value of the space that remains on both sides of the corridor. This is why elevators in large downtown buildings generally are placed in the center of the floor plate, not at the edges of the floor plate. It's fundamental.

The vertical penetrations through four stories may introduce fire separation issues that could be expensive to implement.

In addition, massing the number of people you're talking about may trigger Place of Assembly fire codes which are always expensive and sometimes impossible to implement in existing buildings. That's because the stations will have to be designed to hold the occasionally huge number of people which would gather and wait in increasing numbers whenever there is an incident which shuts down the line. I suppose you could turn passengers away at the door during incidents, but that would undermine confidence in the system, especially if there were bad weather when people really wanted to ride rather than walk. To me, bad weather periods would seem to be precisely the times when the system would be most likely to fail.

Many passengers smoke cigarettes while waiting for their bus. Just look on the ground around any downtown bus stop. Unless the station area is heavily and costly ventilated, the cigarette smoke will sometimes trip smoke detectors in the elevator lobbies, sending the elevators to the first level and locking them out until the Fire Department or an attendant comes to reset the alarms. It happens in small-lobby buildings. And without a driver to enfore "No Smoking" rules in the PRT cars, some passengers are certain to smoke there too, likewise tripping the elevator lobby detectors when they alight from the cars. You could put smoke detectors in the cars, but what would be the effect? A "No Smoking" rule seems unenforceable. And ... what non-smoker would want to enter a car that three heavy smokers just left?

Besides these problems and the fact that there is hardly any support for PRT in Cincinnati, I don't see too many other problems except the dozen or so I've pointed out over the last couple of years.

John
John Schneider
Cincinnati, Oh USA - Thursday, January 18, 2001 at 23:45:21 (EST)

Bob Brodbeck writes

>>
For the sake of time at the moment, I will correct the mistaken math in your posting immediately below, and later proivde a more full rebuttal.
You state "To process 1250 vehicles in an hour through a station implies "processing" a vehicle every 3 seconds (actually, 2.88 seconds)." The correct figure is one vehicle every 34.5 secs/berth, not one vehicle every 3 seconds. The calculation is:
(1250 veh/hr in a 12-berth station)/12 berths = 104.2 veh/hr/berth
(104.2 veh/hr/berth)/(3600 sec/hr) = .02894 veh/sec/berth
(1 veh)/(.02894 veh/sec/berth) = 34.5 sec/veh/berth
<<

This might be true if the berths were all parallel. In that case, for a 12-berth station, you would have quite a wide station. Already the SkyLoop guideway must of necessity be far wider than claimed and pictured in illustrations. Reason: There must be adequate deceleration and acceleration "ramps" into stations, past the switches which obviously must exist at either end. For adequate adjustment to/from the running speeds claimed, access/egree ramps of about 1,000 feet into and out of each station would surely be needed. In effect, this would mean virtually DOUBLETRACKING the guideway for a SINGLE-DIRECTION system.

But back to berths. Let's assume that the plan is not for parallel berths/guideways in the stations (implying stations at least a hundred feet wide with 12 parallel guideways) but to have the litle cars queue up sequentially. With over 1200 cars per hour coming into the station, that still means the queue of little cars would have to keep moving every 3 seconds, continuously
"bumping" the one on the far end back out onto the main guideway.

May I suggest at this point an alternative to your proposed 12.8-mile system? The SkyLoop/Taxi 2000 system evidently has never been tested in real-world, public service, revenue or otherwise. Why not target a far more modest demonstration project, perhaps in a deployment which could feed into a major transit center or even the proposed Cincinnati LRT system? This could demonstrate whatever potential it may have, illustrate its technological capabilities, and perhaps resolve some of the operational and cost controversies which have arisen.

LRP Nawdry
Austin, Tx USA - Wednesday, January 17, 2001 at 15:23:28 (EST)

Mr. LRP Nawdry -
For the sake of time at the moment, I will correct the mistaken math in your posting immediately below, and later proivde a more full rebuttal.
You state "To process 1250 vehicles in an hour through a station implies "processing" a vehicle every 3 seconds (actually, 2.88 seconds)." The correct figure is one vehicle every 34.5 secs/berth, not one vehicle every 3 seconds. The calculation is:
(1250 veh/hr in a 12-berth station)/12 berths = 104.2 veh/hr/berth
(104.2 veh/hr/berth)/(3600 sec/hr) = .02894 veh/sec/berth
(1 veh)/(.02894 veh/sec/berth) = 34.5 sec/veh/berth
Meanwhle I suppose you will have to continue visiting Dallas, San Jose, and Portland to ride LRT systems as the citizens of your city, Austin, TX, recently voted down the LRT initiative there:
http://www.austin360.com/news/features/local/8railvote.html
Bob Brodbeck, Sky Loop Cmte
Cincinnati, OH USA - Wednesday, January 17, 2001 at 08:29:16 (EST)

Bob Brodbeck's response to the question about handling a noonday crowd of 300 people at the Convention Center contains extravagant claims for the SkyLoop (Taxi2000) PRT system and further illustrates problems with this technology as an urban transit mode.

First, where has it ever been demonstrated that this system has the capability to handle 1250 vehicles per hour in a "12-berth" station? Answer: Nowhere, because the system has never been deployed in revenue service in a real-world urban setting.

The suggestion of "12-berth" or "15-berth" stations itself appears to begin to acknowledge some of the realities of accommodating real-world passenger traffic demands with this system and its tiny vehicles. One assumes the "berths" are sequential, i.e., in-line, and not side-by-side on multiple adjacent guideways. If we assume about 10 feet per small vehicle (including a safety clearance), this implies station platforms about 120 to 150 feet along ~ already quite a different picture from the small, unobtrusive aerial guideways portrayed in publicity renderings. Furthermore, each station would need to have at least one elevator (more, to adequately handle traffic) to comply with ADA requirements. Structural supports for such a facility would be considerably more bulky than the slender support poles portrayed in renderings.

To "process" 1250 vehicles in an hour through a station implies "processing" a vehicle every 3 seconds (actually, 2.88 seconds). This is utterly unrealistic for real-world passenger loading conditions, in which three people would be deboarding a vehicle through a single door (after the vehicle has entered, slowed, stopped). The vehicle would need to accelerate and then re-enter the main guideway. All of that cannot be accomplished in 3 seconds.

Mr. Brodbeck tells us that 150 to 300 vehicles would be needed just to handle this rather modest, midday, non-peak passenger load AT A SINGLE STATION. Hello?? Doesn't this tell us something already about the suitability of this system for the proposed application?

We are then invited to envision about "20-plus" stations to which all of these riders are travelling. 20-plus stations for a relatively short line like this? Each station 120 to 150 long, with elevators? Are we not starting to talk here about a considerable amount of elevated structure?

We are told that, if the load is a convenient 2 persons per vehicle, it will take just 7 minutes to get all the passengers out of the station. If each person takes a vehicle, we're told, it will take 14 min. just to "load and embark". 14 MINUTES TO EMBARK??

There are so many problems with this concept it's almost overwhelming. First, how easy is it for people ~ especially strangers ~ to "pair" up in the manner suggested? How would a woman, say, feel getting in an unattended tiny vehicle with a strange man?

Second, it's all well and good to talk about 150 to 300 little cars conveniently waiting at the Convention Center station for this noontime crowd. What about the rest of the system? Is every station conveniently filled with a waiting queue of 12 to 15 vehicles? Then, does it take 7 to 14 minutes for a passenger to debark from any station? What do you do when your volume coming into your station reaches, say 1,000 people, as can happen at peak locations in peak times?

And, since this is evidently a 1-way loop, how would all these people get back to the Convention Center after lunch? Walk? Or be expected to loop back all the way around? I find it implausible that many lunch-goers would opt to use such a system under those circumstances.

These are precisely the kinds of situations and problems that have engulfed previous efforts to implement small-vehicle, "Personal" Rapid Transit systems, and have led to their transmutation into larger-vehicle Group Rapid Transit/Automated Guideway Transit systems such as are today seen in airports, some hotel resorts, and a few downtown areas.

Mt. Brodbeck attempts to contrast the SkyLoop scenario with that of light rail transit, or LRT. First, he asserts it would take 3 LRT vehicles to handle this crowd. Already, that's an admission that these travellers could be accommodated by 1/50th to 1/100th of the vehicle requirements of the SkyLoop system. Actually, given a comfortable peak capacity of about 150 persons per vehicle, a single 2-car LRT train would probably suffice. It would load these people in about 30 seconds or less. With a minimum 2-min. headway (average wait of 1 min.), this midday crowd could be on their way in 1.5 minutes, not 7 or 14.

Br. Brodbeck's assertions as to travel time seem, at this point, pure speculation, since neither a PRT nor an LRT route configuration and schedule have been developed. I will say from personal observation in cities like Dallas, San Jose, and Portland that riding an LRT car or train to lunch is a convenient and pleasant proposition. I would think that any design for an LRT or other circulator transit system in Cincinnati would be remiss if it did not accommodate 2-way, bidirectional routing. With LRT, this could be accomplished, if desired, via single trackage with passing sidings (although a 2-track system would be necessary for the 2-min. headway example previously given).

Although the passenger load postulated in this example is fairly large, it is not implausible to consider such loads handled by historic trolley vehicles. This is routinely done on San Francisco's cable-car system and the new historic trolley line to Fisherman's Wharf. Likewise, in New Orleans, both the St. Charles and the Riverfront historic streetcar lines have the capability to accommodate ridership volumes in approximately this range. Depending on the type of vehicle used, and the proportion of standing vs. seated passengers, 4 to 8 historic streetcars could handle such a load. Since these could be designed to be entrained, 2 to 4 trains, perhaps 1 minute apart (on street trackage), could provide adequate capacity.

A totally elevated, grade-separated circulator system is not out of the question, but it is extremely expensive, and it has the environmental liability of substantial elevated structure. Automated Guideway transit (AGT) systems to work in places like downtown Detroit and Miami. However, the cost per passenger-mile is extremely high compared to bus, LRT, or historic trolley. Nevertheless, an AGT system would at least provide some of the capacity and other operational requirements that seem lacking in the SkyLoop plan.

LRP Nawdry
Austin, Tx USA - Tuesday, January 16, 2001 at 14:47:39 (EST)

Its mostly a matter of station size, that is, the number of vehicle loading berths. PRT stations can range up to 15 berths. It would be expected that the Convention Center would have at least one large station, or perhaps two.
A 12-berth station would probably suffice. Such a station can process 1250 vehicles per hour with a normal distribution of loading times. Realistically it would be expected that these 300 people would be going to lunch in small groups. Assuming they go to lunch in groups of two, then 150 vehicles would have to be processed, which would take about 7 minutes in a 12-berth station. Travel time to the other 20 plus stations on both sides of the river would average about 5 minutes. If all 300 take separate vehicles, it would take 14 minutes to load and embark in a single 12-berth station.
In comparison it would take 3 LRT vehicles with half the passengers standing, or 8 Vintage Trolley vehicles (40 psg per car), to handle the load. Even if this loading situation could be provided, it would take at least 20 minutes, more likely 30 minutes or more, for the vehicles to travel around the Central Area Loop, and the routing would be so limited, that along with the long travel time, the choice of lunch locations would be severely limited.

Bob Brodbeck, Sky Loop Cmte
Cincinnati, OH USA - Tuesday, January 16, 2001 at 12:12:55 (EST)

How many three passenger cars would it take to move 300 people coming out of the Convention Center at noon, all wanting to go to lunch at different places-at the same?
Marco
Cincinnati, Oh USA - Tuesday, January 16, 2001 at 11:30:35 (EST)

The SkyLoop scheme would be an utter waste of money in the configuration for which you're proposing it.

Three-person cars? You've gotta be kidding. So if 2 couples want to use the system, they must leave 1 spouse waiting in the station for the next car? And at rush hour? Do you have any conception of the passenger volumes that transit systems must handle?

PRT has utterly failed as a transit mode ~ Morgantown, WV being the the most extensive and ambitious deployment and probably its most decisive failure. As a result, the PRT concept (originating in the late 1960s) gradually evolved into the GRT (Group Rapid Transit) and AGT (Automated Guideway Transit) modes after PRT basically fell on its face. Now Taxi2000 and other hopeful vendors are trying to revive this moribund and fatally flawed concept in schemes like the Cincinnati SkyLoop.

In fact the Taxi2000 3-person-vehicle system surely must be one of the most flawed implementations of PRT yet seen, especially since one of the most intrinsic flaws of PRT is its congenital weakness is handling large traffic volumes. It's a teeny-weeny system for teeny-weeny rider volumes (e.g., in a zoo or around a resort) ~ NOT the major traffic volumes you encounter in real-world urban revenue service.

A further question arises regarding design and cost. Since there has never been a real-world, revenue-service implementation of the SkyLoop technology, the costs stated are highly speculative. The guideways shown appear almost entirely to be 1-way. Is this nothing but a loop concept? That's OK maybe for a few blocks, but you seem to be talking of miles of operation. So, are passengers expected to use the PRT and then walk back to where they started from? Or are they expected to ride the loop all the way around back to their original station? In either case, any ridership ayttracted to such a 1-way loop system would be miniscule. Yet the design and cost all seem predicated on such a configuration.

Then the costs evoke considerable skepticism in other respects. Do they include stations? ADA-compliant, with elevators? Provision for online evacuation of passengers, as required by FTA? If so, where's the catwalk or other pedestrian walkway needed in your guideway design illustrations? How about park & ride facilities? Bus interface (or don't you propose for SkyLoop to interface with other transit)? Do your costs include all the online switches? Propulsion and control system? Vehicle storage and maintenance facilities? Vehicles? All of these items are routinely included in the costs of light rail systems, with which Taxi2000 and other PRT schemes are often compared. Furthermore, such small-vehicle systems, even automated, cost 10 to 50 times as much per passenger-mile to operate as light rail.

The tiny vehicles present a particular problem. First, such a system would require the operating agency to subscribe to the particular proprietary Taxi2000 technology, thus raising problems of vehicle availability and cost. Second, where would hundreds ~ even thousands ~ of these small vehicles be stored? One envisions vast acres covered with the aerial guideways (and switches) on which the little cars would be stacked end to end.

The SkyLoop scheme has the ambience of, at best, and extravagant pipedream, and, at worst, a ludicrous boondoggle. A far preferable alternative for central Cincinnati would be some kind of light rail circulatory system, such as an historic trolley, or perhaps a small minibus system.

In my opinion, if the Taxi2000 want to pursue a viable market for this product, they would be better advised to stick with zoos, amusement parks, and hotels.

LRP Nawdry
Austin, Tx USA - Tuesday, January 16, 2001 at 00:31:00 (EST)

I agree that rapid transit is a must for the Cincinnati area, but the Skyloop isn’t focusing on the real problem. How is the Skyloop going to relieve traffic on I-75, I-71, and the other highways around town? We need a door-to-door transportation system, or at least a community-to-downtown transportation system. I don’t see how driving to a parking lot, then paying to ride on the Skyloop would be affective at all. This would take commuters more time, and would be more of a hassle. Plus, Americans are very stubborn when it comes to giving up their cars.
The proposed Skyloop system would only be busy during lunch and sporting events. I don’t believe for a second that commuters from outside of downtown will consistently use the Skyloop.
To keep this short, vandalism would be horrendous in the proposed three-person automated cars. I think it might possibly work if commuters had an alternative way to get downtown. A light rail that runs along I-71 would be a perfect start. Otherwise, I think it is a good idea, but it just won’t work.
All of this time and money should be spent looking into subway systems, because if Cincinnati wants to regain the prestige that it once had, a citywide traditional subway system will be necessary.

Mark
Norwood, OH US - Thursday, January 11, 2001 at 16:43:44 (EST)

On May 31st, I touched on the benefit of the "interconnecting loop" design of the SkyLoop PRT concept. This concept not just allows the system to be expanded to cover an area, but a loop can be "split" into two sub-loops with 3 switches to join the "split" track. This comes in handy if there is a need to service a particularly-significant busy location such as a shopping centre or college campus with a direct station at a later stage.

As well, the "loop design" permits the operators to undertake works on the track; or close a segment of track due to an emergency affecting the segment's location without impairing the rest of the system. Only those "loops" affected by the trackwork or switches need to suffer impaired service.

The "off-line" setup also allows individual stations to be closed for particular time periods if need be, as in stations that are built into stadiums or shopping centres. This means that the PRT system prevents commuters from specifying these stations as destinations or waypoints during that period. All the vehicles also bypass those stations very quickly.

With regards,

Simon Mackay
Simon Mackay
Melbourne, VIC Australia - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 04:29:32 (EST)

I'm a student of PRT and am trying to get a system started in Los Angeles. This is a rebuttal
to Mr. Tuckers comments below.

First off, a true PRT system such as the one being promoted by Sky Loop has never before been tried. Therefore, there are no past failures to be aware of.

Item one says PRT will do little to discourage auto use. What are some reasons a person may choose PRT? PRT will be faster, safer, and less expensive than driving. Those are some pretty good inducements. The only way to get people out of their autos is to provide a superior mode of transportation.

Item two says PRT discourages street level pedestrian traffic. When a person gets out of the PRT vehicle she will most likely need to walk some distance to get her ultimate destination. This will be done at street level, and since the
PRT system is elevated, pedestrians will actually be safer if there is less auto traffic.

Item three appears to be a non-sequiter since the purpose of any transit system does not include encouraging investment in neighborhoods.

Item four states that PRT encourages isolationism. That may be true of the current Sky Loop proposal, however Sky Loop is (I would hope)just the beginning. If PRT is expanded to residential areas, then a PRT patron would walk from his home, through his neighborhood, to get to the PRT station. He may even see and talk to his neighbors on his way to the station.

There is nothing to say about item five except beauty is in the eye . . .

One problem with LRT (light rail) and expanded bus service is that by putting more vehicles on the street you are going to add to the congestion. Since busses and LRT must stop several times between your origination and destination, and PRT doesn't, PRT will get you to your destination quicker.

Best Regards.
Andre Maloney
Los Angeles, CA USA - Sunday, September 24, 2000 at 21:36:40 (EDT)

I have been pleased to see all the media coverage Sky Loop has been receiving recently. Transportation issues are becoming more and more important to our community, and we can't count on light rail to meet all our transportation needs. A PRT system is exactly what our downtown needs. Keep up the good work.
Kendra Schroer
Loveland, Oh USA - Saturday, August 26, 2000 at 14:41:08 (EDT)

I am promoting a new modern transport system that appears to be capable of being provided free by a provider who will guarantee the system to represent a clear enhancement in every aspect desired. The integrated system will be accident and congestion free. Possess far faster commutes and will use non polluting local electrical energy. It is a elevated guideway system that will accommodate existing road based vehicles, personal, public, and commercial.

The systems remarkable efficiencies in structure qty, life span, maintenance, and energy show the clear ability to deliver a lucrative profit to the investors. The accident, pollution and congestion free environment will resolve community concerns. Greater speeds, ease of use, and reduced time and lower cost with use will guarantee usage.
The systems most ideal use is as a limited access community connector. It will remove through traffic from local streets returning them to the ideal low speed use we desire.

It is a truly Integrated transport infrastructure. Meaning that its larger than PRT guideways are fully capable of incorporating other transport infrastructures. Such as electrical, communications, water, sewer, etc. The provision of these infrastructures access in the controlled and secure environment of the permanent guideway way will greatly simplify their implementation, maintenance and continued upgrading.

I have been studying elevated systems for some time and find PRT systems very lucrative but severely limited in their scope of application. They are incapable in form of being anything but another specialized and additional infrastructure.This integrated system however addresses the growing concerns about ecological and environmental maintenance’s but its even larger enhancements in social and economical processes are truly revolutionary.

There is much of course about this system and its abilities with influencing efficiencies and impacts that I have not addressed.

I would be delighted to carry out a more detailed conversation with anyone who is interested.
George schrader@digitalexp.com
InTranSys -(Integrated Transport System) http://personalpages.tds.net/~cimarron/

"Sustainable Society" web page http://members.delphi.com/geeoh

"Sustainable Development Forum"
http://forums.delphi.com/m/mydelphi/mydelphi.asp?sigdir=SustainableDev

George Schrader
Panama City, FL USA - Saturday, August 19, 2000 at 04:20:27 (EDT)

I think it's great that you've chosen the build TAXI2000. I've always been a big supporter of PRT. Hopefully, one day PRT will be built in Los Angeles and I'll only have to drive for recreation.
Ray Shah
Marina Del Rey, CA USA - Friday, August 18, 2000 at 14:55:56 (EDT)

After browsing through this scheme and being aware
of PRT's past failures, I'm left with the
following impressions:

1. PRT as a stand alone form of transit will do
very little to discourage auto use. In principle,
I believe it will actually encourage it, therefore
worsening existing congestion problems.

2. PRT discourages street level pedestrian traffic
which is essential for a vibrant and safe
downtown. This system seems to be in competition
with pedestrian traffic on street level.

3. PRT does nothing to encourage investment in
"brownfields" or other older areas needing
improvement.

4. PRT by it's inherent nature, adds to the
antisocial isolationism that is prevalent in our
culture today.

5. Being somewhat subjective, aesthetics come into
play. An elevated system becomes a "high profile"
part of the cityscape. From what I've seen, I'm
not sure I'm too impressed with the visual impact
this system would place on Cincinnati.

I cant help but think that if this system ever
were to be implemented, it will rival the dismal
failure that Detroit's "People Mover" loop(granted
it's not PRT) has experienced.

The best viable solution for Cincinnati's sprawl
and congestion woes is a light rail system working
in tandem with expanded bus service. To promote a
PRT system before light rail is implemented would
be complete folly. If you want to promote PRT, do
it only after light rail is up and well
established. Only then might it be of any
measurable usefullness, if at all.

And that's my humble opinio
Andrew Tucker
Cincinnati, OH USofA - Tuesday, August 15, 2000 at 22:23:41 (EDT)

You really need to have area codes and phone numbers in your newspaper stories..Sunday past article in Cincinnati, Ohio, article had no telephone number for contact for the Ohio visit...got nothing without a puter...Called Covington, Kentucky, office..receptionist had not a clue as to what the heck is going on..that is sad, and bad for any business....get it fixed now.

The public library in Cincinnati, Ohio, had no idea either about the September, 2000, presentation..just sticks into a voice mail with no response in a long time..

The Kentucky visit had the same thing..voice mail..the people at the phones no not a damn thing about your presentations.

Very unprofessional for the person on the go and wanting to attend..butta bing..butta boom..We gotta know now..not voice mail, no phone listed...why bother to have a large press interview with no timely telephone numbers, and then when you reach someone at it, they know not what is going on at all for your events?> Geez...where is Ralph Nader when I need him?
J. Janus, Jr
SycamoreTownship Blue Ash, Ohio U. S.A. - Tuesday, August 15, 2000 at 11:39:34 (EDT)

I would like to say that I think this is a great idea. Much of it has been thought out and engineered for total economy. While there is still a great deal to be done before it can be implemented i.e. deciding on a power source for one thing, it has great potential. I would like to make a suggestion though. In the simulation, the station roof is a four-sided pyramid. What if photovoltaic cells were used on the roof? It would require a little more cost in the beginning, but the savings would be phenominal. I do not know enough about the cells to know if they could generate enough voltage, but I thought it would be a good thing to look into. Perhaps, the cells could ben located on the roof of the cars as well, but that would not be effective if they sit in the station. I love the idea though, and I wish the best of luck in future planning.
Kyle
Kyle
Cincinnnati, OH US - Sunday, August 13, 2000 at 12:42:08 (EDT)

What is the current positions of the local, state, county, federal governmental entities that this PRT will through?

What and how would funding for studies, installation, right of way legal issues, repair, security, on going operations be dealt with at the onset?

The video is not too bad..some addtions could be clearing up the blur on the one interview and splicing better the one that is cut off.

I find it helpful that there is mention of some planned, in operation, domestic and foreign PRT governmental entities involved in this issue.

I have found the person responsible for the communications for this organization in The Greater Cincinnati, Ohio, area to be quite responsive in a timely manner.

That is what is needed if this entire concept will come to fruition in our lifetime.

The possibilities to have a win-win situation for many are there.

Go for it...

Way!

"Jay" Janus, Jr., A. S., B. A.
Citizen Advocate/ Investigator

jjanusjr@hotmail.com
"Jay" Janus, Jr.
Blue Ash, Oh THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Monday, July 10, 2000 at 12:50:30 (EDT)

We will check with Myron Hughes re any comments in our retail analysis that are off base. Certainly the addition of Nordstroms, if City Council goes for the $50 million cost, will help downtown retail. SLC notes, however, that about half this cost is for a 400 space parking garage. One of the principal benefits of the Sky Loop would be to make these huge expenditures for parking at every downtown facility less necessary, as the Sky Loop ties into destinations like Nordstroms from existing and cheaper parking facilities on the periphery of downtown...
Chip Tappan, Chrm., SLC
Cincinnatti, OH USA - Monday, June 05, 2000 at 00:37:24 (EDT)

Your Impact on Retail article is somewhat misinformed. The City of Cincinnati has commissioned several market studies on downtown retail. Please contact Myron Hughes of the Department of Economic Development at 352-1926.
Mark McKillip
Cincinnati, OH USA - Friday, June 02, 2000 at 08:25:27 (EDT)

Another factor that I gleaned from the Web pages is how a PRT system can be expanded at will; if there is sufficient demand for coverage in an area. The concept of "off-line" stations allows for a new station to be inserted without impairing on the operation of the system. As well, an extra loop can be constructed "off-line" then brought "on-line" by adding extra switches.

This could entice expansion of the PRT into surrounding Cincinatti neighbourhoods as demand sees fit and the system generates good profit.
Simon Mackay
Melbourne, VIC Australia - Wednesday, May 31, 2000 at 12:00:26 (EDT)

I think the PRT system is a wonderful alternative to the traditional MASS systems. I have read every opinion on this page and I am drawn to one conclusion. The majority of people here base their "opinions" on their own personal experience rather than the needs of the entire community and the cost effectiveness. So far, I have only seen and read good things about the PRT system. I would rather not have to ride with a group of strangers in an uncontrolled situation where my safety is as risk. If you don't think it's a valid opinion, look at the NYC subway system where it's crime infested. I really dissagree with the opinions based on the poorer neghborhoods shoudn't be a reason alone to go PRT. I hate to burst people's bubbles but crime generally exists more in low income areas rather than richer areas. Think about it, there are poor people that would rather not deal with the crime... they happen to be good people wanting a better way of life too.

The system costs less than mass transit, it doens't require as much road reconstuction, it's attery/electrical operated and produced no emissions on the car level. It's a faster means of transportation because you don't have to stop at every stop, it's 24 hours a day, more people would be willing to use a private system of public transportation and so far, I have only seen plans to impliment a better survey system to be in place to monitor the cars cleanlieness.

I am really shocked that the opinion is so far south on the desire for this system. The city of MInneapolis/St. Paul was part of the research team in the design of this system. I only wish our bull headed gov. would take this cheaper method of transportation than the out dated, small serviceable area method known as light rail.
N Perry
Minneapolis, MN USA - Monday, May 29, 2000 at 05:18:47 (EDT)

There is a major reason that I would support the Sky Loop project. If Greater Cincinatti is the first city to have an operational PRT system, the system will put that city on the map as far as tourists go.

In Melbourne, our trams (light rail in streets) have put the city on the map and have become tourist attractions in themselves. As well, London's "tube" (subway) has helped put London on the map by becoming another tourist attraction.

The PRT will do the same for Cincinatti. To achieve this, the operators need to look at issuing unlimited-journey time-specific passes as ticket options. As well, special journey-specification machines should be available at stations to those people who use time-specific passes or multi-use tickets; rather than the regular "buy and specify" machines which occasional commuters use.

Also "integrated ticketing" should be explores such as "Sky Loop + event" tickets for events and "Sky Loop + mass transit" tickets for use by people who need to change to a mass-transit service.
Simon Mackay
Melbourne, VIC Australia - Saturday, May 27, 2000 at 03:04:55 (EDT)

Now that TAXI 2000 is officially the address for the Raytheon PRT, there is actually a good chance that the system will be installed and running in quite a few locations worldwide. Here in Israel, the City of Tel Aviv is a natural location for this monorail.

Within the coming few days, I am registering as the head of a Non-profit organization to push for this system.

It's not easy, to be sure, but it's the logical thing in a nation where gas costs $3.20 a gallon.

Comments via e-mail welcome.
A.J. Weiss ajw@technologist.com
Tel Aviv, ^^ ISRAEL - Sunday, April 02, 2000 at 16:36:51 (EDT)

In response to Jake below, you are correct that PRT systems are not like all the other "real" mass-transit systems in use today. And all of these people who don't live in "real" neighborhoods are all a bunch of racist, segregationalist, forward-thinking idiots. "Real" mass-transit as you say is SO much better. What were these designers thinking when they came up with a transit system that allows people to travel when they want to, where they want to, and ONLY where they want to without having to stop at every station along the route? It seems SO much more practical and efficient to make everybody have to go to every station along the route regardless of their intended destination. And OH how we would all miss the joy of being crammed into a train with a few hundred other people. Reminds me of something that John Rocker said (although I don't necessarily agree with all of it). And economically speaking, we all know how successful light rail is. Sure it's at least five maybe ten times more expensive (and MUCH more convenient), but that must mean that it's better. Right? Don't forget subways either. They're a bargain. Just ask people in Los Angeles. I think Jake and I have made our point, and if you're STILL not convinced, go to the web page listed below which has links to Sky Loop and a whole bunch of other PRT systems. Long live Light Rail!--Yeah right;)

http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/prtquick.htm

Robert
Austin, TX USA - Saturday, February 19, 2000 at 07:55:31 (EST)

The Sky Loop PRT concept is a terrific solution to the "last mile" problem encountered by traiditional rapid transit, especially in newly-built systems which have low depot densities. It also side-steps many of the construction problems faced by surface mass transit and subways. I'm advocating it's use in Phoenix, where I live only 10 miles, but 45 minutes, from downtown by car.
Erik
Phoenix, AZ USA - Saturday, February 05, 2000 at 18:18:49 (EST)

I live in Brooklyn, land of the elevated "heavy-rail" subway/elevated mass transit lines.
In my opinion, an elevated transit line only en-
hances the "neighborhood feeling."

Come visit Brooklyn. Do some shopping on 86th St. in Bensonhurst. With the el passing overhead it makes for an experience that you just can't get inside some mall.

James S. Gagliardi
Brooklyn, NY U.S.A. - Monday, January 24, 2000 at 18:05:14 (EST)

People who are advocating light rail over PRT are ignoring the 4 basic problems with conventional rail:1)Having to wait for the train,2)Having to stop at every station to load and unload passengers,and 3)Lack of 24hr. service.PRT is just plainly a better idea. Now that we're in the 21st century I think it's time we stopped relying on technology from the 19th century.
Charles Mikolajczyk
Buffalo, NY US - Saturday, January 08, 2000 at 23:39:34 (EST)

You need to have your planners update the station maps to include the location of the new baseball stadium. I realize that your analysis may have occurred before the final siting of the stadium, but if you want to be taken seriously by the public as "forward thinkers", you need to have the most up-to-date information on the plans.
Rob
Cincinnati, OH USA - Wednesday, December 22, 1999 at 11:01:21 (EST)

I see a lot of people criticizing PRT on these pages, but nothing I've heard convinces me they have a better alternative. I wonder if any of these same people actually attended the June, 1998 Transportation Technology Symposium. I suspect if they had, they might be thinking a bit differently or at least have an alternative we can afford.
kendra schroer
Loveland, OH USA - Wednesday, November 24, 1999 at 16:26:29 (EST)

Hey Bob, thanks for the politician speach -- the Skyloop has absolutely nothing to do with being ambitious or futuristic or forward looking or any of that. My friend sent me this:

Jake, what is up with this "Sky Loop" thing?? How it could possibly be more economical than a real mass-transit system is beyond me. And in
spite of statements like the following, the whole idea of "personal rapid transit" seems to have a segregationist subtext. At the very least, it's
highly representative of this horrible mentality you find in the United States that you have to separate yourself from other people all the time.
I really think Americans are afraid of each other- that's what drives the obsession with living in a house, having a big yard and a clearly defined
property line, owning a big car- or having "personal transit" of some form. The obsession with privacy. The appeal of the Internet and television. And of course the fear of the "poor" neighborhoods, in this case a direct jab at Over-The-Rhine, which is of course an infinitely more interesting place than any suburban subdivision, and is actually a real neighborhood. Of course suburbanites can never be convinced of this, since they don't know what a real neighborhood is.
Jake
Cincinnati, OH USA - Monday, November 22, 1999 at 00:54:25 (EST)

It appears that the Taxi 2000 PRT could be the new paradigm solution for greatly increasing transit effectiveness, safety, and efficiency. More importantly for the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky metro region however, would be the realization on the part of our community leadership of the unique opportunity in time we have with this new transit concept to play an important and highly visible role globally in its development. In the words of the the "Gallis Report", "Once, as a young America began moving west, Cincinnati stood as one of the country's major emerging urban powers. Among its leaders and citizens a mentality and energy prevailed to make, maintain and grow a great city. Where is that mentality and energy today? You live today in the remains of that greatness and in the shadow of those dreams. Beckoning you as you approach the millennium is an historic opportunity for the Greater Cincinnati metro region to take its place as a significant global competitor. But first the question must be answered: Do you still have the mentality and energy to be great? That urgent choice is yours to make today.
Bob
Cincinnati, OH USA - Saturday, November 13, 1999 at 22:39:24 (EST)

THERE IS NOT A PARKING PROBLEM DOWNTOWN. Cincinnatians complain so much about stupid stuff because there aren't real problems in this city. Downtown is not dead, was never dead, and I'm sick of the people that don't realize how great this city is. I go downtown several times a week, always find a spot on the street, never park in a garage, have never had my car broken into even though I've left it unlocked several times by mistake, and don't mind walking a few blocks to where I'm going and have never been mugged or anything while walking around at night. I am sick of people who go downtown 3 times a year doing nothing but complaining about it and saying there's nothing to do and it's a hassle to park. Wake up people.

John
Cincinnati, OH USA - Tuesday, November 02, 1999 at 02:21:24 (EST)

Somebody down there said "less intrusive than a subway". Come on, the whole point of a subway is that it has its own totally unobstrusive right of way. And to quote somebody else down there, if Cincinnati wants to be a "major player"...than I say build a real subway, not light rail lines or anything silly. I mean, "light rail" just sounds like "lite beer", and I always wonder what's wrong with people when I see them drinking that stuff. The stations should be done in the art deco style with terra cotta tyle that Cincinnati's original 1920's subway stations were to have. For a good hint at what they would have looked like, take a look at the Carew Tower's underground garage opposite the Westin. It's the best looking parking garage in the city, and the tile probably wasn't especially expensive. All the new subways and light rail lines (Atlanta, St. Louis, etc) have plain poured concrete stations and lack any of the energy of the New York or London stystems with their tile walls and exposed beams(not to mention a train only comes every 12+ minutes). Plus, they won't be able to resist coming up with some obnoxious acronym instead of just calling it the "Metro" or the "Subway". There's no reason with a $100 billion surplus the federal government shouldn't be allocating billions to cities to build subways...but of course they'll keep spending to add lanes to interstates.

John
Cincinnati, OH USA - Tuesday, November 02, 1999 at 02:03:51 (EST)

Now that Raytheon has dumped the PRT program, maybe it's time you took another look at a proven transit mode that is still forward thinking. Good Luck with your efforts!
Kim Pedersen/President
the MONORAIL society
www.monorails.org
Kim Pedersen
Fermont, CA USA - Friday, October 22, 1999 at 16:30:04 (EDT)

The Sky Loop will legitimize PRT. People will see how well it works, and the issues of traffic, environment, economy, and convenience will all be addressed with this vital system.
dan lowe
Edmonds, WA USA - Tuesday, October 12, 1999 at 02:01:27 (EDT)

A PRT "loop" giving access to all of the businesses, stores, restaurants, hotels and entertainemt places in the downtowns of Cincinnati, Newport and Covington will be wonderful. Because people can ride in privacy from one place to another without having to stop at stations along the way, PRT will serve more than anything else possible to revitalize the downtown areas and to reduce the traffic congestion and the cost and difficulty of parking downtown that are all too common now.
Chuck
Highland Heights, KY USA - Thursday, September 30, 1999 at 09:37:33 (EDT)

What about the tie in between the effort to bring the Olympics to Cincinnati and the need to modernize the transportation options in this area? If Cincinnati ever hopes to be a major player in the future, we need to start thinking futuristic. Let's get the ball rolling.

Erika
Cincinnati, OH USA - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 09:50:09 (EDT)

What I like about PRT is the fact that it is less intrusive than light rail or subways, and costs less. We need transportation that is affordable, expandable and sustainable. We also need to make linking to Northern Kentucky a priority!!!
Kendra
Loveland, OH Estados Unidos - Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 08:51:22 (EDT)

The skyloop tracks in Cincinnati would have to be built at a 3rd story level or else some skywalks will have to be removed. All of the mass transit focus should be on a traditional subway network throughout the region instead of light rail or PRT.

Jake
Cincinnati, OH USA - Monday, September 27, 1999 at 23:47:10 (EDT)

Final test setup.
Bob Brodbeck
Cincinnati, OH USA - Thursday, September 23, 1999 at 16:43:24 (EDT)

Email Announcement Service

About Sky Loop Membership

Join us!


Copyright © The Sky Loop Committee of Forward Quest