Slashdot Mirror

The principal problem of this, and most other similar suggestions, is that while such a system is good for a-b transport, reality is a network. Such a system helps you not at all, unless the goods to be delivered are already at the start-station, and are being transported to the end-station.

If not, you need to *first* load it on one mode of transport (typically some kind of car) -then- drive to the nearest "station" where the goods are repackaged, then near the destination, repeat.

It turns out the delays and costs of reloading cargo, frequently makes the economy such that it's better to simply go the entire distance by lorry. The advantage of the lorry is that it goes from where your goods are, to where you want them, with zero intermediary re-loads. (typically anyway, sure there's exceptions)

The lack of a robust network, also makes the system vulnerable. When (not if!) one ropeway breaks down, what do you do ? Reroute onto roads ? Wait ?

I think the best hopes are for dual-mode-transport, that is, vehicles that can drive both on normal roads -and- on special-purpose tracks of some sort. Doing this, gives you the best of two worlds. Have a look at http://www.ruf.dk/ for an example system.

I actually think railable cars is a much better solution than *flyable* cars. There's multiple concepts for regular cars that have a "slit" under the middle that make it possible for them to drive on a monorail.

The advantages are many, compared to normal car:

For longer commutes, you can spend the time on the rail sensibly (catching up on news or email, for example)

Higher capacity, on the rail the cars can form a "train" with zero inter-vehicle distance, which means a single rail can have the capacity of 4-5 lanes. Also, doing this reduces wind-drag a "train" of 10 cars does *not* use the same energy as 10 individual cars.

Potentially higher speeds.

Electric vehicles can get power from the rail, solving one of electric cars achilles-heels, namely the short battery-range and long recharge-times.

Making the car capable of self-driving when on the rail should be MUCH easier than self-driving on a road. A self-driving car can get you somewhere while you relax.

At the same time, the fact that these vehicles are *also* normal cars mean you can get one even if there isn't a rail going to *everywhere*. When a rail is available, you use that, when not, you drive the normal way.

Have a look at http://www.ruf.dk/ for one such example.

Yes, there's engineering-challenges in this too, but they're MUCH simpler than those assosiated with flying cars. And the advantages are many.

Take a look at the RUF -- it not only charges the car, it drives it for you, at 90MPH.

The RUF makes more sense. http://www.ruf.dk/ Cheaper by an order of magnitude per mile and you can drive on and off it. The lesson of the internet is that the first and last mile matter.

Oh, great, just what Mumbai needs ... more cars. How about India doing something different, like the RUF.

Errrr, you've basically reinvented the RUF. Go check it out.

Stationary pollution treatment equipment is much more effective than mobile pollution treatment equipment. Electric cars damage the environment less than gasoline cars.

http://www.ruf.dk/ is a dual-mode transportation system that uses the best characteristics of electric trains and cars.

The RUF is a better system than this. First, because it's dual-mode: you can drive (compatible) cars up onto the guideway. Second, because cars are privately owned (in addition to cars owned by the system operator and run as taxis within the system), the system operator will not have to come up with all the capital needed to run the line .... just the guideway and whatever number of taxis they want to run.

http://www.ruf.dk/

Electric cars give you more torque at zero RPM than any internal combustion engine. If you want to talk about performance, you're talking about electric cars. If you want to talk about enjoyable driving, you're talking about electric. The sooner we get there, the better. And yet there's a place for mass transit; that's why I keep promoting the RUF dual-mode monorail system. Small batteries on streets, and power from the monorail otherwise.
-russ

This site claims to have a solution of sorts.

I think the future of the car is dual-mode vehicles. That is, a car which operates as today's cars do, but which can also drive up onto a monorail. One design is the RUF. On ordinary roads, it runs off batteries. Not a trunkfull of lead-acid batteries, but a modest battery, sufficient to get from home to the nearest monorail. Maybe a 50 mile trip max. Once on the monorail, electrical pickups power the vehicle. On the monorail, the vehicle is mechnically inherently safe. Braking works by gripping the monorail, not relying on the weight of the vehicle and a constant coefficient of friction with the road. So with reliable braking, vehicles can form a phalanx, to increase traffic density and reduce wind resistance.

Vehicles on a monorail will drive a 90 MPH, and do so with great safety. Even grandma, because the cars are computer-controlled on the monorail. You designate your exit, and the computer takes care of routing you. Each car does its own routing based on global traffic announcements. Just like BGP4 on the Internet.

Damn but I'd like to say "Take me to Boston and exit onto Boylston St." and then read a book, or fall asleep, or use the Internet access provided by the monorail connection.
-russ

Like the RUF?
-russ

There's just too many problems with fuel cell vehicles (e.g. high production costs and where the hell will we get the hydrogen from) I prefer the RUF dual mode transport system. I hope it goes somewhere: http://www.ruf.dk/

That's why you want to use a RUF. It only needs a small set of batteries, because the guideway powers the car on trips longer than ten miles.
-russ

No, it's not about the batteries. You need a road that charges your car, so you only use batteries when you're off that special road.
-russ

Seriously, though, not only would a http://www.ruf.dk/ system work better, it would be more likely to succeed.

Area of operation.
SkyWeb is a bit better at this than traditional mass transit, but RUF covers much more area. As mass transit (bus-rail), RUF can use existing roads and switch to rail when it makes sense. RUF can also be used by individually owned RUF-enabled cars, extending the range far beyond the range of current bus systems.

Hours of operation.
SkyWeb is no better at this than traditional mass transit, but RUF can be used at any time by individually owned RUF-enabled cars.

Having to share a car with other people.
SkyWeb is a bit better at this than traditional mass transit, but 3 person unattended cars that are not owned by the occupants are likely to be vandalized. You could solve that with security cams, but they're very offensive to many people. WIth RUF, you can ride in attended vehicles or a RUF-enabled car you own, giving people a privacy option.

Having to walk too far.
SkyWeb is a bit better at this than traditional mass transit, but RUF allows those of us who do not want to walk a half a mile (for reasons such as disabilities, infant/child companions, bad weather, the size and weight of shopping booty or laziness) the option of using our own RUF vehicle from garage to garage.

Time to get somewhere.
SkyWeb is probably a bit better than this than traditional mass transit and so is RUF as used by the bus-rail vehicles, but personal RUF vehicles can be much faster than traditional cars.

Reducing congestion and pollution.
RUF wins hands-down because it invites more people into the system.

Automobile company opposition.
RUF wins. The existing manufacturers can make RUF enabled vehicles with all of the personality, comfort and profit of existing models.

Getting people to use it.
If you were sitting in a traffic jam watching RUF vehicles go by at 100km/h and knew your next car could ride on the RUF and have all of the personality, comfort and range of operation you were used to, you'd buy RUF.

Why hasn't RUF caught on? Maybe because it is compromise between mass transit and personal vehicle ownership. If Mass transitites give up a bit of social control (stop thinking that all cars are bad) and personal vehiclites give up a bit of stearing wheel control (only when on the track), we can have less congestion, cleaner air, go places faster and be less dependant on fossil fuels and still have the freedom of movement and ownership we enjoy with cars.

Yes, look at the Minneapolis Hiawatha Light Rail system. It cost almost double the estimates, ridership is not meeting targets, and traffic in the city is now worse because the trams have priority at traffic lights.

The RUF is the only mass transit that would work in the US, because it preserves the attributes of the private automobile.
-russ

One of the biggest problems with public transport, is that many people still have to walk a considerable distance before they reach their final destination.

Unlike the RUF, where you drive your car out of your garage, head for the nearest RUF intersection, drive up on the guideway, and it drives you to the RUF intersection nearest your destination, where you continue driving manually there. Door to door mass transit.
-russ

You mean like the RUF?
-russ

The problem is that it doesn't work like a car. The RUF works like a car, and has all the benefits of the SkyWeb that you listed in your posting PLUS you can drive on and off it.
-russ

They have even done some studies with major cities and provided a complete system that integrates into the existing infrastructure.

Additionally the vehicles are capable of off-track operation via electric drive systems. I think that most americans, bred on the car culture we have created here would be more open to this type of system.

Personally I think this is a better system because it still allows users the freedom of having thier "own" vehicle, but also has the benefits of being an efficient mass transit system.

Link: RUF Dual-Mode transport system - afaik, this project is very old, like 10 years or more, here's the faq

Link: RUF Dual-Mode transport system - afaik, this project is very old, like 10 years or more, here's the faq

RUF is a better dual-mode system. It uses a triangular guideway and works with specially-designed cars, busses, and small goods deliveries.
-russ

I've been fascinated by the RUF dual mode system for a long time (also linked from the UW site). It has yet to be imple anywhere, however it looks extremely attractive to me.

It combines the advantages of cars and public transport with it's roll-on/roll-off railway system. It's part of the EU cybercars project, which has some nice videos.

I've been fascinated by the RUF dual mode system for a long time (also linked from the UW site). It has yet to be imple anywhere, however it looks extremely attractive to me.

It combines the advantages of cars and public transport with it's roll-on/roll-off railway system. It's part of the EU cybercars project, which has some nice videos.

The RUF is a city car that can run on electric monorail at high speeds. Its primary advantage is traffic density -- cars can run bumper-to-bumper at 100MPH+ on a track small enough to fit in the center of most highways -- but the ability to run on electrical power provided by the rail is pretty neat too. The downside is the initial investment in the rail.

This idea is to make a car, which can travel roads and a special rail which also supplies power. High speeds are obtainable on the rail and batteries are charged while the car is on the rail. Off-rail travel will be battery powered.

Rapid Urban Transport may be a good solution for large cities. And most big cities grow larger every day.

(No, I'm not related to the inventor, Jensen just happens to be the most common name in Denmark)

Well, this system combines the advantages of trains with the flexibility of cars.

Seems to be a great idea to me - I'm not related to the inventor, "Jensen" is just a very common name in Denmark.

You are right - it isn't a new concept. Quite interesting though!

To see an example of a somewhat similar system try this link to the RUF system

• Innovative Transportation Technologies - Descriptions of over 40 electric, automated transport technologies, ranging from conceptual to operational. Includes people movers (supported and suspended systems: monorails) and automated freight systems.
• Monomobile: Electric Rail Car - Lightweight electric car that attaches to suspended monorail for long trips and can run independently of the rail for local trips.
• RUF: Rapid Urban Flexible - Hybrid car/monorail: you drive it on and off roads and monorail tracks as needed.

RUF combines the best of cars with the best of trains

The RUF system is a system where all vehicles can drive in 2 ways (Dual-Mode). They can either use the normal roads or they can "ride" on top of a triangular monorail.

The RUF vehicles can both be cars (ruf) and busses (maxi-ruf). The rail (guideway) is a very slender triangular monorail made from 20 m long modules and carried by masts.

When the vehicles "rides" on top of the monorail, the center of gravity is placed below the top of the rail, so the stability is very high. Derailment is impossible. It is possible to squeeze the top of the rail in order to make an emergency braking. This way it is possible under all circumstances to brake in a very short time. Short safety distances means large capacity.

Energy consumption is very low due to the close coupling of vehicles to form a train. This principle also increases safety, since collisions within the train are eliminated when the vehicles already touch each other.

The rufs are electric vehicles with small batteries. The batteries are partly recharged while the ruf uses the rail.

The most important being:

1) The Interstate already goes everywhere, and already has convenient access.

2) I can merge onto the Interstate at 70 MPH.

Did you check out the information on the website that explains the concept? Each "station" is a place where individual vehicles can merge on and off the track without stopping.

3) My existing car works on the Interstate.

Sure - that's probably the biggest obstacle. But if the infrastructure already was in place, would you then consider bying a RUF as a second car?

4) I can exit the Interstate without every other car for three miles in either direction having to stop.

Exiting is pretty much the reverse of merging onto the track, as described above, so that's probably not an issue, unless of course the driver falls asleep during transit.

When you look at this picture, imagine what would happen if users were lax in replacing their break pads.

More - including prototype pictures - at www.ruf.dk