Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />or between activity centers (Chicago, Detroit). Advantages of this technology are related to <br />very frequent service which can be easily augmented or decreased to meet the demand. The <br />high service frequency tends to attract greater ridership. Like heavy rail and monorail, this <br />technology requires a special guideway which cannot be crossed by other vehicles. Crossings <br />of streets or other rail systems must be grade separated. <br /> <br />Implementation costs for this technology are high because of required grade separation and the <br />automated control system. Station costs are higher because of grade separation. A significant <br />expenditure is required for maintenance of control system elements, including the trackway and <br />the hardware for monitoring and operation. Since AGT must be grade separated, it is a <br />relatively inflexible option with respect to alignment changes. As with other grade separated <br />modes, alignment extensions could be costly unless implemented in an already grade separated <br />right-of-way. <br /> <br />AGT is not recommended for further study. <br /> <br />h. Personal Rapid Transit <br /> <br />Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is a relatively new public transit mode currently under <br />development. PRT has not yet been implemented in any location, so costs can as yet only be <br />estimated. PRT's fully automated operation requires that the alignment and stations be grade <br />separated. The primary development guideline and selling point for this technology is the <br />ability to provide direct non-stop transit between an origin and a destination. PRT plans have, <br />so far, been limited to activity centers rather than an entire region. <br /> <br />Despite the small guideway and vehicle size, a large network of elevated structures would be <br />required to provide the proposed service. The number of stations, and correspondingly, total <br />station cost would likely be high. This technology would be better suited to circulation and <br />distribution within an activity center and could be used as a support network for line haul <br />transit. PRT in the Northstar Corridor is not recommended for further study. <br /> <br />3. RECOMMENDATION OF TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIES TO CARRY <br />FORWARD <br /> <br />The following technologies are recommended for further evaluation as alternative options in the <br />study corridor: <br /> <br />. Bus (standard technology) <br />. Commuter Rail <br />· LRT <br /> <br />Northstar Corridor Major Investment Study <br />Conceptual Definition of Alternatives <br />February 1999 <br /> <br />I1I-13 <br />