JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News

Jack May wrote:

Getting magnets in the freeways and expressways for ITS and having
incentives for automobile companies to supply the in car technology could
increase capacity by maybe 500K or more over time with a cost of maybe $10M.
The ITS solution is not well studied and has a wide variation in my
estimates.

$10 million? You neglected to mention that $20B worth of equipment
would have to be added to automobiles to make it work.

"nobody" wrote in message
...
big box stores profit of walkup guy versus SUV guy.

You need to consider that a parking lot isn't free. The store must
purchase
the land and pay taxes on the land which, for box stores, doesn't generate
any
revenus. There are also costs associated with lighting and surveillance,
as
well as snow removal.

So part of the cost of the roll of toilet paper goes towards paying for
the
parking lot, so walk-in customers end up subsidizing the SUV drivers.

Do SUV drivers subsidize passenger cars drivers? If passenger cars occupy
as much space as an SUV (assuming the SUV guy has the driving skills to
center in a marked lane) and buys less per trip, the SUV / minivan guy
"pays" more for his spot than the passenger car, assuming that all who go
to box discount stores fill to capacity, which is well within my personal
experience.

In an airport, the equation is different because parking generates
revenus. Do
those parking lots generate virtual profits because the full costs of the
land/maintenance/taxes is not factored in ?

You're right. The equation is completely different. Airports aren't
private
commercial enterprises, but part of the transportation infrastrucutre, or
quasi-public goods. Infrastructure is also a necessity for local business
development.

Also, you're forgetting that a lot of air traffic isn't passenger related.
Shipping companies need lots of warehouse space, trucking space, and
easy access to highways and rail. Look out your window between
NJT 14A and 13A next time you head that way.

What if governments were to mandate that airports must pay an environment
tax
for each hectare of land that does not have vegetation ? (grass or forest)
?
Perhaps airports would then see the savings in giving vast expanses of
paved
land back to nature and fostering mass transit access to the airport.

Or else JFK and LGA would get smaller and EWR would get bigger. NJ
isn't famous for environmental conservation, when you consider how far EWR
is from Superfund sites. You don't want to create competition for jobs
based
on local environmental reg waivers.

Also, airports generally have vast expanses of land around them due to
noise
issues. Is the land more profitable as a paved parking lot, or would they
make
greater profit leasing the land for industrial complex/wharehouses ?

Like LAX? LGA? JFK? Midway in Chicago? Haneda in Tokyo?
Seems that in 2+ airport cities, the trend is that one got surrounded
until unable to expand, forcing the construction of the second one much
farther away.

LAX overcrowding has lead to the John Wayne airport in Orange County,
EWR is the overflow from JFK/EWR, Narita is the overflow from Haneda
in Tokyo. O'Hare is the overflow from Midway. More?

Steve Lackey wrote:

LAX overcrowding has lead to the John Wayne airport in Orange County,
EWR is the overflow from JFK/EWR,

......but historically EWR was there much before JFK, and EWR is much
more capacity constrained than JFK both in terms of runways and
gates/slots; so wouldn't it be the case that JFK is the overflow
from EWR?;-)

Jishnu.

"Steve Lackey" wrote in message
...
EWR is the overflow from JFK/EWR, Narita is the overflow from Haneda

It may well be the other way around. For 20 years, since the advent of
People Express, Newark has on and off handled more passengers than Kennedy,
albeit it on fewer flights. The paucity of business flights in the morning
and midday at Kennedy is what led Jet Blue to see the opportunity to start
its low-cost operation there. On the other hands, the Port Authority has
long tried to resist the movement of international carriers to Newark,
starting unsuccessfully with SAS (a problem then because of its involvement
with Continental), and continuing through other European and then Asian and
Latin American carriers. Newark's strength has for some years been first the
busy Continental schedule and then the other carriers' business-oriented
flights, starting in the morning and running into the night.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:

Since transit use is declining typically about 10% to 15% per decade
all over the world (as expected for a technology at the end of its
life), the space inefficiency will just get worse.

Did you make that factoid up?

It is census data collected here

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-intlmkt95.htm



Transit ridership in the US is the highest it's been for the last 40
years. I also checked the statistics in France and the UK to see what
has been going on there, and the long term trends are up in both
countries.

Go look at the census data above. The data is for market share not absolute
number which are not useful because they are not normalized for comparison.

Rail transit ridership in Europe, in particular, has significantly
increased, and prompted the construction of about a dozen light rail or
VAL lines in France, plus a number in the UK, with an additional 25 or
so planned.

Again look at the census data.


They also experimented with a guided bus system, but have given up on
the technology, and are now intending to essentially encircle the city
with light rail lines running through the suburbs.

The tram lines in Paris have been a huge success, with one line
attracting triple the number of riders as the bus line it replaced. It
now handles about 65,000 passengers a day. Paris also just completed an
automated metro line (Meteor) which was needed to offset the
overcrowding on other heavily used lines across the city.

Since all of this is contrary to your contention about "technology at
the end of its life", how to you explain all these success stories?

You have just given antidotal data that is unusable for proving anything.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Jack May wrote:

Getting magnets in the freeways and expressways for ITS and having
incentives for automobile companies to supply the in car technology
could
increase capacity by maybe 500K or more over time with a cost of maybe
$10M.
The ITS solution is not well studied and has a wide variation in my
estimates.

$10 million? You neglected to mention that $20B worth of equipment
would have to be added to automobiles to make it work.

Are you claiming that mass produced electronics is very expensive. Lets
see, a computer to follow the magnets is about 50 cents to a dollar, so that
must mean that 200 billion cars are produced each year. Not exactly
realistic.

But wait, don't forget about cars are starting to put in electronic
steering, braking, and acceleration to cut cost because that "expensive"
electronics is cheaper than the cost of mechanical components. So the extra
cost may be negative as ITS accelerates the mass production of automotive
electronics.

If people can get to work without traffic jams and at high speed, it is
obvious they will pay the extra if there is an extra cost because their time
is very valuable and saving time is worth a lot of money. People then at
least have the choice of what they are willing to spend unlike taxes that
they are forced to pay.

In article OVX_b.403737$na.793922@attbi_s04, says...

But wait, don't forget about cars are starting to put in electronic
steering,

No such thing. All cars have a direct mechanical link from the steering
wheel to the wheels on the road.

braking,

I'm pretty sure only Mercedes has this on limited models. Not something
that is common.

and acceleration to cut cost because that "expensive"
electronics is cheaper than the cost of mechanical components.

Not true. A motor and the associated electronic components that it takes
to run such a set up will never be cheaper than the simple linkages needed
to run these devices.

-------------
Alex

Jack May wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Jack May wrote:

Since transit use is declining typically about 10% to 15% per decade
all over the world (as expected for a technology at the end of its
life), the space inefficiency will just get worse.

Did you make that factoid up?

It is census data collected here

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-intlmkt95.htm

That doesn't support what you said. The link is to market share, not
absolute ridership. In fact, ridership is increasing, just not at the
same rate as the overall market, hence a drop in market share. In
increase in overall ridership does not indicate a "technology at the end
of its life." Instead it indicates a technology that has a strong role
to play in the specific applications where it works well.

Transit ridership in the US is the highest it's been for the last 40
years. I also checked the statistics in France and the UK to see what
has been going on there, and the long term trends are up in both
countries.

Go look at the census data above. The data is for market share not absolute
number which are not useful because they are not normalized for comparison.

Absolute numbers are useful, in spite of your denials. If the absolute
numbers were dropping I would agree with your view. Instead, they are
rising, particularly in mature cities, where you would expect ridership
to have leveled off years ago.

Rail transit ridership in Europe, in particular, has significantly
increased, and prompted the construction of about a dozen light rail or
VAL lines in France, plus a number in the UK, with an additional 25 or
so planned.

Again look at the census data.

I looked at current European statistics, and the absolute numbers are
rising, showing strong gains.

Since all of this is contrary to your contention about "technology at
the end of its life", how to you explain all these success stories?

You have just given antidotal data that is unusable for proving anything.

"Antidotal"? isn't that to counteract poison? How fitting.

Try these data sources, if you really want to pore through them. The
ridership trend is up, just not quickly. Considering that most European
transit systems tend to be mature, and are not rapidly expanding, that
is a pretty good result. Where they are expanding, ridership is
increasing at a healthy rate.

http://www1.oecd.org/cem/sites/stat.htm

Jack May wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Jack May wrote:

Getting magnets in the freeways and expressways for ITS and having
incentives for automobile companies to supply the in car technology
could
increase capacity by maybe 500K or more over time with a cost of maybe
$10M.
The ITS solution is not well studied and has a wide variation in my
estimates.

$10 million? You neglected to mention that $20B worth of equipment
would have to be added to automobiles to make it work.

Are you claiming that mass produced electronics is very expensive. Lets
see, a computer to follow the magnets is about 50 cents to a dollar, so that
must mean that 200 billion cars are produced each year. Not exactly
realistic.

Fifty cents is certainly not realistic. The last data I saw stated that
fully 20% of the manufacturing cost of some new automobiles was in the
electronics, and that the cost - not price - of the electronics in the
average car is in the order of $1800. This is strictly the cost of the
diodes, transistors, and integrated circuits, and not the final price
charged to the consumer, which is multiplied many times. It is also far
beyond fifty cents worth of parts.

Beyond the fact that a replacement, mass-produced, fifty cent engine
controller for my car has inflated to $900 when I want to buy it, and
the optional ABS system was about $1,000 when the car was new, do you
really think the auto manufacturers are going to accept product
liability for a system that takes over control on the car for a few
pennies? It doesn't matter that it might be safe overall, the first time
it steers a car directly into a cow instead of swerving around it, there
will be an expensive lawsuit, which the manufacturers will lose. They
will price it to cover that anticipated cost.

But wait, don't forget about cars are starting to put in electronic
steering, braking, and acceleration to cut cost because that "expensive"
electronics is cheaper than the cost of mechanical components.

The primary motivation is not because of their lower initial cost, but
because they free up room for other belt driven components, and they
lower the weight compared to hydraulic pumps. The down side is that
they use a lot more power, and are one of the things that are pushing
the move to a 42V electrical system.

So the extra cost may be negative as ITS accelerates the mass
production of automotive electronics.

Wishful thinking. ITS will be an optional, stand-alone extra on cars.
With its safety ramifications, and since it is in technological infancy,
the manufacturers won't risk applying it as part of an integrated
system. Further, since not everyone will want it, they won't want to
push up the base price for something that has limited appeal. It isn't
like Gilette giving away the razors to sell the blades later.

If people can get to work without traffic jams and at high speed, it is
obvious they will pay the extra if there is an extra cost because their time
is very valuable and saving time is worth a lot of money.

And how many people will that be? It won't likely be retrofitable to
older cars, so the basic system will have to be supported by new car
buyers. If someone drives an F-150 pickup in Leadville, Colorado, and
no ITS equipped roads are within 1,000 miles, they won't see any need to
opt for the system on their vehicle. That leaves only a few people that
both have the money to buy new, live in an area with a network of
equipped roads, and need the vehicle to regularly drive on the roads
while they are congested. The mass-production is getting pretty small.

People then at least have the choice of what they are willing
to spend unlike taxes that they are forced to pay.

You are advocating installing it in vehicles to lower the unit cost,
whether a purchaser wants it or not. How is that choice? I also have
little choice on spending my transpiration dollar on anything but cars
these days. I certainly don't recall voting for the Big Dig, yet I am
paying for it. There isn't a public transportation system available
that could be called competition. There simply is no choice now, nor
would there be with ITS.

Alex Rodriguez wrote:

says...

But wait, don't forget about cars are starting to put in electronic
steering,

No such thing. All cars have a direct mechanical link from the steering
wheel to the wheels on the road.

There are some systems now applied to cars. I believe that Honda was
the first with a production vehicle. They use an electric servomotor to
provide variable power assist to a basically mechanical linkage. Using
the servomotor to provide full control of steering is feasible.

braking,

I'm pretty sure only Mercedes has this on limited models. Not something
that is common.

Electronic control of the hydraulic braking system is fairly common. A
number of European manufacturers use it as part of traction control,
where the brakes are applied to slipping wheels, and of course for ABS.
These include companies like VW/Audi, Volvo, BMW, and others.