tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post6780159663358350680..comments2024-03-09T04:13:55.185-06:00Comments on Open PRT specification project: 152> Standardizing for the FutureDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-22055445725287334272013-02-15T10:27:54.869-06:002013-02-15T10:27:54.869-06:00Early systems, I think, will be like ULTra-Fairwoo...Early systems, I think, will be like ULTra-Fairwood, where a consortium essentially internalizes all the risk and designs, builds and operates the system in exchange for fare revenue.<br /><br /><br />The trick seems to be creating an effective incentive structure to encourage making IP/standards available for other firms to use.Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-84657990882902416122013-02-14T20:39:01.912-06:002013-02-14T20:39:01.912-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-81952841103604952892013-02-14T20:38:48.257-06:002013-02-14T20:38:48.257-06:00Dan the Blogger thanks alert reader Andrew for bre...Dan the Blogger thanks alert reader Andrew for breaking the silence! Oh! On a related note… That widget or gadget that used to list comments stopped working. It never was a Google product and maybe the authors will get the bugs out, in which case I’ll put it back… Anyway, back to the subject…<br /><br />I think that some kind of a cut of the fares or (equivalent) going forward should be part of the mix, for sure, and reliability incentives seem like a no-brainer as well. It seems wise to separate the various aspects, such as vehicles from track from stations, etc. in the final mix, since each has its own dynamics. Vehicles will be tricky, because someone will want money at the end of manufacturing process (or earlier) yet they would be the first thing to break or wear out. Perhaps the PRT provider will act as a financing company and guarantor in this respect. I would add that the structure of any deal for a largely untested system would be totally different than what might evolve in later projects since each and every player will initially be extra cautious. <br /><br />To reiterate a point from the post, the reasons for a specific design choice can be more than what is extensible, (flexible in terms of extending its usefulness) and forward-compatible. (The parts work in future iterations.) A good design should also reflect flexibility in terms of business models. It still remains to be seen how discreet the various parts of a PRT system can be and still function as a seamlessly functioning and fault-proof whole. If the entire system can be completely broken down into very small, individually-improvable parts, that will have profound implications for how the whole business, including the marketing, should be structured. <br />Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16303568401426087509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4063450658421522356.post-55806510984003875112013-02-13T10:35:10.200-06:002013-02-13T10:35:10.200-06:00I think rather than a PRT manufacturer trying to m...I think rather than a PRT manufacturer trying to make a substantial profit on selling system components, they would be better off giving the purchaser the right to buy components through competitive tender using the company's IP, but in exchange for a 50 year royalty of x cents per passenger mile, and y cents with freight tonne, in inflation-indexed terms. This, I think, would help to align the interests of the city (or other purchaser) with those of the PRT manufacturer/system designer. It then allows the system to be sold at cost or cost+a small margin, and shift more of the cost into a discounted stream of success-contingent revenue. This lowers the up-front risk for the purchaser of the system. It would also get around the problem of short term patents...Andrew Fnoreply@blogger.com