The inventor has a point; to get people to give up their cars, you have to offer them something just as good or better.
-=AM=-
Posted by HRE (Member # 6263) on :
Very interesting. Appears possible, if you can get citizens to look long-term instead of short-term. That will always be the problem.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Looks really good to me. It might even work!
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Heh. Yes, this will take off. Let me just get in the flying car the 1964 Popular Mechanics promised me.
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
heh, It could be nice...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think it would work and the technology exists today. But, do I actually think people will buy into it? Unfortunately, no. People don't like paradigm shifts. Wittness my company who is barely in the computer age. States and cities change even slower than industry due to burearcacy(sp?) However it is low enough cost that if they can talk one smaller city into doing it and it does work, it just might catch on.
My dad did a bunch of mag lev research for a while. Even presented a couple of conference papers on the subject. I wonder if he has heard of it...
AJ
[ March 15, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
the problem with those (yes they are cool) is you still have to have a fully devoted pilot.
I like this monorail system much better because I could read a book or do any number of other things instead of driving myself to work. And hopefully it wouldn't take as long to commute too.
AJ
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thing, but does he intend the stops to be? At every house?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think every couple of blocks or so. Probably at similar distances to where bus stops are.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Where I live, bus stops are nowhere near close enough to be able to use them, unless you live near the university.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
But people who don't have vehicles use them nonetheless. I think it really depends on where you live. Here in the Chicago area they are pretty frequent. But other places I know it sucks.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I foresee an enormous problem here with commuter patterns. The system seems to rely on traffic back and forth between access points to refresh what they call the "dwell line," the queue of empty vehicles waiting to service the queue of waiting people.
This works well in two situations:
1) a commuter-only model, in which everyone is moving from point A to point B at the same time and then, later in the day, from point B to point A.
2) a downtown-only model, in which everyone is hopping on and hopping off the various access points at largely random, widely-dispersed locations.
However, as described, the inventors intend for this to be used in situations that combine BOTH usages -- and therein lies the rub. Unless the downtown network is detached from the commuter network, it seems unlikely that any given "dwell line" could guarantee a sufficient number of empty vehicles for a random number of travelers.
That said, the inventors seem to have anticipated this problem -- as they've anticipated the problems that a two-seat, no-cargo model would cause by designing "optional" vehicles based on a different chassis to address those needs -- by fully computerizing the driving model. In this event, it's POSSIBLE for a powerful enough piece of software to arrange to move empty vehicles from a slow-moving terminal to a terminal in need, thus minimizing the wait for an empty vehicle. In theory, if done properly, this would resemble the elevator automation currently used by large buildings today.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
The infrastructure costs of this would be huge!
Posted by Ghost of Xavier (Member # 2852) on :
I agree Tres, but the operational costs would be far less than cars. Plus the traffic problems in cities which this would be attractive for would lessen dramatically. I personally would never drive again if something like this was available.
Plus, millions of lives would be saved with the safety when compared to cars.
I must say though that I pretty much never see this happening. Well, actually, I think something like this NEEDS to happen to keep urban centers viable. I just think the change-over will be quite painful.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:The infrastructure costs of this would be huge!
Have you seen the costs involved with widening an existing road, especially in an urban area?
Posted by Annie Mayhem (Member # 6203) on :
TomDavidson wrote:
>I foresee an enormous problem here with commuter >patterns. The system seems to rely on traffic >back and forth between access points to refresh >what they call the "dwell line," the queue of >empty vehicles waiting to service the queue of >waiting people.
That's a good point. I supposed the master computer COULD be programmed to place at least one empty pod at each portal, automatically replacing each one that departs. It could also track commuter patterns and remember them.
Maybe the entire system could be accessible through the phone or internet, so if you KNEW which portal you'd be using, and at what time, you could "order" a pod to be there. This would work particularly well for the special-use pods. I guess the problem then would be keeping someone else from absconding with it!