In message , Graeme Wall
writes

In message
Paul Terry wrote:

"kiss and fly" meaning stopping for only a minute or two

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.

The DfT appears to define "kiss and fly" as a car journey which does not
require a parking space; para 6.7.24 in:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...on_508119.hcsp

But I have no idea if that is the definition that Atkins used. I'd never
heard the expression until Livingstone used it when talking of the
Heathrow Congestion Charge (is that still on the table?) when he was
reported as saying, in his usual charmless manner, that it "would also
punish drivers who visit the airport only to drop off or collect
passengers: this is the end of kiss and fly".

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.

You would - and I have. Sadly, if many do what I did (which was to drive
around the metaphorical "block" a couple of times) you can see why there
is a problem!

--
Paul Terry

Roland Perry wrote:
What's in the "unused" half today? A void, or maybe some sort of secret
access?

The Strategic Reserve

eat

--
|"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure
....| is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby
ScR|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scot-rail/
Pix|http://photos.eatnet.org.uk/

Tony Polson wrote:
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.

How do cyclists get into the central area now?

How will they when this is built?

Colin McKenzie

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:06:14 +0000, Ewan wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
What's in the "unused" half today? A void, or maybe some sort of secret
access?

The Strategic Reserve

The narrow-gauge S******** R****** ? It seems about the right sized
"hole" to use as a cable tunnel or similar but if I tell you any more
I'll have to shoot you.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

I can't help noticing that there is a continuous strip of undeveloped river
valley from Feltham Station to Terminal 4. But I'm not sure if using PRT on
this corridor makes financial sense.

In message of Sun, 12 Mar
2006 17:06:34 in uk.transport.london, Tony Polson
writes

[snip]

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.

Thanks for an interesting reference. The case looks good and should
contribute to reducing queuing on most mornings from the M4 to the
Central area. Sadly, there are typos in page 6/22:

Travel Times* by ULTra vs Bus

Car Park Users Time Time Time Time
per Shuttle ULTra Saving Saving
Day Buses minutes %
....
Park 1 532 6.4 4.0 4.0 (sic) 38%
....
Average 9170 16 (sic) 6.3 9.7 60%

*Time in minutes includes sum of walking, waiting and trip

My calculation is that that 16 should be 15.5. I have not bothered
making any more enquiries into the redundancy of the data. I am sad that
proof-reading failures intrude.

As far as I can tell, the analysis ignores the generative effects of
increased accessibility.
--
Walter Briscoe

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
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


Does the report say anything about emergency evacuation, either in general
or more specifically within the tunnels (I can't check, the report won't
open for me)?

--

Regards

John

In message , John Nuttall
writes

Does the report say anything about emergency evacuation, either in general
or more specifically within the tunnels

Only in general terms - the track is unpowered, the vehicles have
emergency exits and that "HMRI have also provided consent, in principle,
to the approaches to be used in the initial LHR scheme, which includes
operation in tunnels".

--
Paul Terry

On 11/3/06 21:01, "Tony Polson" wrote:

Looking at this from my splendid isolation, I wonder if it will work,
or is it just another scheme that looks good on paper but is in
reality another badly engineered piece of true British amateurism?

You know the sort of things I mean; Robin Reliant, Parry People Mover,
Birmingham Airport Maglev, Leeds guided busway, airships and the
"Great Eastern" steamship ...

The Reliant Robin, please, and not the Robin Reliant. One of many models
made by Reliant of Tamworth

John Rowland wrote:
I can't help noticing that there is a continuous strip of undeveloped river
valley from Feltham Station to Terminal 4. But I'm not sure if using PRT on
this corridor makes financial sense.

I'm also not sure that PRT is very suitable for this kind of connection,
where a lot of people will arrive (at the PRT stop at Feltham) together
from a train, but no-one will arrive in between trains. The reverse
direction is better, because people arriving from planes don't bunch
together quite so much (given customs etc.).

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London