"Paul Terry" wrote

I'm not sure that's so. The 80% figure in the W S Atkins report was
quoted as that for "kiss and fly" car journeys at peak time. I've always
understood "kiss and fly" to mean the practice of stopping for no more
than a minute or two to drop down or pick up.

May well apply for departing passengers, but it is rarely possible to pick
up arriving passengers without going into the short-term car park

Peter

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Old news, but I don't recall reading it here...

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/n...20/npods20.xml

Did they buiild the system in Cardiff yet?



Having read all the posts here I have to say I have two issues with the
proposed use of the side tunnels. The first is width. The tunnels, as
currently configured have a lane wide enough for a car/taxi and not much
else plus a narrow foortpath. The pictures suggest sufficient width for
two PRTs. Now, I can't find a reference to how many people each PRT will
carry abreast but unless they only carry one (so maybe 2 in total) I would
seriously question whether you'll get 2 into the width available.

Secondly, where is the second level? I have been visiting Heathrow on a
regular basis since those tunnels opened. The side bores that are
currently used as taxi tunnels were originally for bicycles and pedestrians.
I don't remember ever seeing a second level. If they do exist I have to
assume they are for "services" and full of things like cables and pipes.

Now, none of that makes the proposals unworkable. Why do you even need 2,
much less 4 tracks? But it does make me wonder a bit.

Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Tony Polson
writes

So what did you mean when you typed:

"BAA are committed to reducing car journeys to Heathrow from 65% to
50%, and part of that will probably involve pick-up and collection
from a People Mover terminal."

Simply that the People Mover could be used to service "Kiss and Fly"
drop down points away from the CTA, as happens at Chicago O'Hare and
many other airports. But that is pure speculation - and, while it would
reduce traffic in the most congested area, I have already said that it
won't reduce car journeys to the general area of Heathrow.

So I am asking again why you claimed the people mover could contribute
to a reduction in the car journeys to/from Heathrow.

And the answer is the same:

It won't.


So first you claim that it will, then you claim that it won't, then
you claim that you never said it would.

Thank you for making that clear.

(as mud)

"Graham Harrison" wrote:
Having read all the posts here I have to say I have two issues with the
proposed use of the side tunnels. The first is width. The tunnels, as
currently configured have a lane wide enough for a car/taxi and not much
else plus a narrow foortpath. The pictures suggest sufficient width for
two PRTs. Now, I can't find a reference to how many people each PRT will
carry abreast but unless they only carry one (so maybe 2 in total) I would
seriously question whether you'll get 2 into the width available.

As long as the guidance system is accurate, and the PRT pods follow it
precisely, the clearances needed between guided PRTs and between each
PRT and the wall is probably very small. The former taxi tunnels lack
headroom, but they are reasonably wide.

Secondly, where is the second level? I have been visiting Heathrow on a
regular basis since those tunnels opened. The side bores that are
currently used as taxi tunnels were originally for bicycles and pedestrians.
I don't remember ever seeing a second level. If they do exist I have to
assume they are for "services" and full of things like cables and pipes.

As I said further up the thread:

If you looked at the .pdf document all would become clear.

The former taxi tunnels, which are no longer limited to taxis and are
freely available for cars, are in the upper half of a two cell
structure. The lower cell is not currently in use.

The proposed new transit system would use both the upper and lower
halves.

As I said, it is all in the .pdf document. All you need to do is
click on the link:

http://www.atsltd.co.uk/media/casest...se_studies.pdf

Now, none of that makes the proposals unworkable. Why do you even need 2,
much less 4 tracks? But it does make me wonder a bit.

RTFM.

In message , at 15:21:23 on Sun, 12 Mar
2006, Paul Terry remarked:
The 80% figure in the W S Atkins report was quoted as that for "kiss
and fly" car journeys at peak time. I've always understood "kiss and
fly" to mean the practice of stopping for no more than a minute or two
to drop down or pick up.

It could easily include any cars parked in short-stay for an hour while
the passenger is waved-off or awaiting arrival. You'd need to see their
methodology to be sure. In the USA istr there's a form of "kiss and
ride" short stay parking that prohibits the driver from leaving the car,
rather than limiting their stay.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Graham
Harrison writes

Having read all the posts here I have to say I have two issues with the
proposed use of the side tunnels. The first is width. The tunnels, as
currently configured have a lane wide enough for a car/taxi and not much
else plus a narrow foortpath. The pictures suggest sufficient width for
two PRTs. Now, I can't find a reference to how many people each PRT will
carry abreast but unless they only carry one (so maybe 2 in total) I would
seriously question whether you'll get 2 into the width available.

The stated width of the side tunnels is 4.013 (including the walkway,
which it seems would go). Each PRT has an outside width of 1.4m (about
the same as a Honda Civic) - ample room for people sitting two abreast.
So I guess there would be adequate clearance, given that the PRT is
guided and presumably has no opening windows.

Secondly, where is the second level? I have been visiting Heathrow on a
regular basis since those tunnels opened. The side bores that are
currently used as taxi tunnels were originally for bicycles and pedestrians.
I don't remember ever seeing a second level. If they do exist I have to
assume they are for "services" and full of things like cables and pipes.

According to the report, there are piped services in the lower portion
that could be re-routed.

Now, none of that makes the proposals unworkable. Why do you even need 2,
much less 4 tracks? But it does make me wonder a bit.

I think the proposal is that just one tunnel would be used for both
incoming and outgoing - so two tracks are pretty much essential. I think
the illustration of four tracks is just to demonstrate that they system
could be expanded if needed.

--
Paul Terry

In message
Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Graeme Wall
writes

In message
Paul Terry wrote:

Indeed, but I was referring primarily to the drop-off/pick-up traffic,
which apparently accounts for 80% of the car journeys through the
tunnel.

But a lot of that will be using the central car-parks, they are for short
term use.

I'm not sure that's so. The 80% figure in the W S Atkins report was
quoted as that for "kiss and fly" car journeys at peak time. I've always
understood "kiss and fly" to mean the practice of stopping for no more
than a minute or two to drop down or pick up.


That's what it means at stations, but even then you are normally using the 20
minute bays for pick-up. With the vastly inferior time-keeping of air
travel, a lot of pick-ups at least are going to use the carparks while they
are waiting. I suspect if you tried to wait in the pick-up zone for more
than about 5 minutes, you'd be moved on fairly smartly.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message , Tony Polson
writes

So first you claim that it will, then you claim that it won't, then
you claim that you never said it would.

*sigh*

My point is that the proposed system could be used to prevent "kiss and
fly" car traffic using the tunnel. ATS themselves have made this
suggestion, pointing out that this is where four tracks through the
tunnel would be needed.

I have no idea whether BAA would count the saving in car and bus
journeys as part of their overall strategy to reduce car journeys to
Heathrow. Does it really matter?

--
Paul Terry

In message , Roland Perry
writes

"kiss and fly"

It could easily include any cars parked in short-stay for an hour while
the passenger is waved-off or awaiting arrival. You'd need to see their
methodology to be sure.

Agreed - although it would be a rather spectacular kiss if it lasted for
an hour.
--
Paul Terry

In message , at 17:06:34 on
Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Tony Polson remarked:
The lower cell is not currently in use.

The proposed new transit system would use both the upper and lower
halves.

As I said, it is all in the .pdf document.

The current deployment of upper/lower cells is not in the document.
--
Roland Perry