Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 89
89 Table A-5. North American non-airport APM systems to be surveyed. Wheel/Rail City System Name Technology Propulsion Interface 1 Detroit, MI Detroit People Mover Rapid rail (small) LIM Steel/steel 2 Indianapolis, IN Clarian People Mover People mover (small) Onboard Rubber/concrete 3 Jacksonville, FL Skyway Monorail (small) Onboard Rubber/concrete 4 Las Vegas, NV Las Vegas Monorail Monorail (medium) Onboard Rubber/concrete 5 Las Vegas, NV Mandalay BayExcalibur Tram People mover (medium) Cable Rubber/steel 6 Miami, FL Metromover People mover (large) Onboard Rubber/concrete 7 Morgantown, WV Morgantown PRT PRT Onboard Rubber/concrete 8 Vancouver, BC SkyTrain Rapid rail (medium) LIM Steel/steel 9 Washington, DC US Senate Subway People mover (small) LIM Polypropylene/steel Table A-6. APM systems at which to conduct site visits. APM System Type Layout Toronto (YYZ) Airport Dual-lane shuttle Detroit (DTW) Airport Single lane bypassing shuttle Detroit, MI Non airport Single-lane loop Chicago (ORD) Airport Pinched loop Newark (EWR) Airport Pinched loop New York City (JFK) Airport Pinched loop (trunk/branches) and single loop Vancouver, BC Non airport Pinched loop (trunk/branches) Seattle-Tacoma (SEA) Airport Single-lane loop (2) and single-lane shuttle Seattle, WA* Non airport Dual-lane shuttle DallasFort Worth (DFW)** Airport Dual-lane loop *The Seattle Center Monorail, although a manually operated people mover, was selected for a site visit since the research team was also visiting the APM at SeattleTacoma International Airport. **The DallasFort Worth Skylink APM, although not visited specifically for the purpose of this project, is listed here as a site visit since one of the research team members is very familiar with the system, having worked on the implementation of that APM over a multiyear period. locations of the systems in the list to determine the preferred taining APM systems. The draft survey instrument was com- properties for conducting site visits. The general purpose of pleted in advance of the site visits and contained questions the site visits was to gain a better understanding of the dif- organized in the following five areas: performance measures, ferent APM systems, thereby helping to structure the survey data collection, suggestions for improving airport APM per- instrument. The research team's goal was to visit, in the fewest formance measures, general information, and system and number of trips, as many diverse systems as possible within operating characteristics. the constraints of the project budget. Table A-6 shows systems that were selected for site visits. 4.2.2 Conduct Site Visits Concurrent with the development of the draft survey 4.2 Survey Instrument instrument, the research team scheduled visits at the APM Concurrent with identifying sites to be surveyed and visited, systems listed in Table A-6. While coordinating the schedule, the team developed the survey instrument and presented an the team corresponded with the hosts to explain the purpose early form of it to the APM systems where site visits took of the visits and the objectives they wished to accomplish place. The instrument was then refined based on feedback while there, which included a system tour and discussion from those visits and other information observed/obtained with the hosts about aspects of their system and performance as a result of the visits. measurement practices. The team conducted its site visits in two trips, as reflected in Tables A-7 and A-8. During the site visits, the research team provided a copy of 4.2.1 Develop Survey Instrument the team's scope of work (the ACRP RFP) to the hosts. The In preparing for the site visits, the research team developed team also provided a copy of the draft survey instrument a draft survey instrument based on the project scope of work, for the purposes of obtaining comments on the instrument the tasks performed on the project up to that point, and its from the owner/operator perspective. These comments, own experience planning, designing, operating, and main- in conjunction with the information gleaned from the site