Slashdot Mirror
ULTra Robo-Taxi
irksome writes: "Found a link on msnbc about a driver-less taxi pod. According to the article, the vehicle has begun road tests in the city of Cardiff, Wales. The pod, known as ULTra (Urban Light Transport) could make driver-free transport a reality and not just the stuff of futuristic fantasy."
10 bucks says NYC won't allow it unless it travels at a minimum speed of 45 mph.
It's the Mark I version of the Johnny Cab.
Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
And instead of running on inconvenient roads, you just need to build a special 1.5 meter track to your destination. My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!
that thing wouldn't last 10 minutes on the streets of LA.
It seems like something like this comes up every few months and seems to be vaporware. What happened to the self-driving cars that are just your old car with a new chip in it that was supposed to correct traffic flow.
Also, how is this going to be cost effective, I.E., what is the benefit to this? I can guarantee that buying and maintaining the robot costs more than getting a driver and paying him $8/hour for 8 hours a day. Will this be a novelty item or just something useful?
__________________________________________
Take comfort in your ignorance.
Grandmaster Plague
Welsh drivers are some of the worst in the world especially when considering the prodigious amount of alchohol in they consume. I doubt that even their livestock could pass a dui.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Wow, they plant to make thirty pods in two years for a price of $65 million. Great, and they're battery operated. Plus, they move at a whopping 25 miles per hour. I feel like this could easily become the sweeping revolution in mass transit.
"Passengers will 'hail' the pod from a designated stop, where they select the required destination along a set route." Sort of like a bus. Except buses don't cost $2 million to build, and they seat more than four passengers... additionally, they expect a trip to cost as much as a bus, except buses are cheaper, higher capacity, don't require a renovation of an infrastructure, already available, and in many cases faster than these pods.
Seriously, though, what if someone swipes the battery, smashes the windshield, or perhaps "disables" the potentially raised rail? Who would get sued? Or would they make you sign a disclaimer (the "you can't touch us if you get killed" variety)?
Basically, what I'm seeing is that we'd be better off *not* investing in these things: too expensive for too small of a gain.
For atmosphere, an indian with a turban will be placed in every pod. He/she will be payed to ask random things in a deep foreign accent, and yell at you when you ask him what he/she said.
Well, as long as your destination is near that route, you'll be fine. But this is more like a bus service with a small vehicle than a taxi car.
A taxi car should be able to get to any point in the city/village/town, and take orders/bribes from passengers who ask it to go faster. =)
-Cyc
/.'s 10 Millionth
I guess it takes a while for MSN to get old news from the BBC.
- The Sigless Wonder
from the faq:
;) :P
:P There's a reason why this is debuting in wales and not nyc, eh?
"We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway."
Oh that's a nice feature to plan for
I suppose the original plan was to add big nerf-style bumpers instead so that at 25mph the unobservant kiddies would just bounce off gently
heh, i just noticed this one:
"What about vandalism?
We hope that the system will be a source of pride to the community it serves so that vandalism incidents will be limited."
In _some_ communities, *vandalism* is a source of pride, so "vandalism incidents will be frequent, persistent and guaranteed"
it's setting the pace for the important stuff. As soon as people get used to trusting these glorified mass transit devices, computer run cars won't be dismissed as a pipe dream.
Since the technology is already here, the important advances in travel will come as soon as there is a market. When I say the technology is already here, I mean that no scientific discovery is needed to pull this off, just some clever engineers and bit pushers.
We should applaud the invention becasue of what it will lead to, instead of ridiculing the present "state of the art."
I'm a concientious
Personal Public Transport
Lots of discussion of transportation systems, network layout, engineering, control, etc.
I met a guy at CMU working on vision technology for Mercedes. Ostensibly, the technology would identify pedestrians and make a warning sound.
It sort of worked too, at least from video tapes from a car driving down the street. It could identify human shape and draw a little box around it.
The guy seemed a little distressed when I pointed out to him that his technology looked a LOT more useful as a robotic machine-gun targetting system.
Funny how people can fool themselves.
We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway.
I just hope it doesn't run on embedded windows!
I stole this Sig
Yes, why don't we get rid of all the agricultural machinery while we're at it, so we can all get back to being rural peasants, and knock it off with this pretentions "technology" stuff.
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
Go ahead and build it, but build it privately. That way, if it fails to provide the service people want, it will simply go away.
The article says it costs "only half as much as Light Rail", but so what? One Light Rail sytem of my acquaintence, San Jose CA, costs 8 times more to operate than it brings in through ticket sales.
The taxpayers are stuck with this bloated wart-hog of a white elephant, a political monstrosity that cannot be allowed to go away.
So maybe this ULTra really is the next GreatThing(tm, us pat off). If so it will pay for itself, and investors will be happy to build it in order to profit from it.
At least that way no one is forced to pay for something they don't want.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Every once in a while I see piles of boxes of products, early in the morning, waiting outside on the sidewalk for the shop workers to open the shop and bring the new inventory in.
My imediate reaction is, This Is Not New York!
Oh, and the taxis here are clean, smell good, and run on propane.
But just like New York, they don't speak much English.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Am I the only person who actually LIKES to drive? My commute is the best part of my day. Everyone talkes about the idea of cars that drive themselves as something great... Personally It is something I dread. Do you think this will make cars safer? Do you trust the software that much?
By god, I don't see the wonder in it.
--T
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
This looks like another take on the Ultra-Light Rail Vehicle concept that's been around for a long time now. Basically replacing the "light" rails and trollies we're used to from a lot of cities with really light vehicles running on even lighter rails. Removing something the size and mass of a locomotive and replacing it with something the size of a Honda Civic with even lower mass.
From a pure engineering standpoint, these things are a great idea and are a much better solution to the "public" transit (as opposed to "Mass" transit as we're saddled with now) problem. The rails are relatively inexpensive to fabricate. They're much less intrusive. They can be switched easily to give better coverage. And the vehicles are light, quiet, and cheap.
The vandalism problem is probably the hardest to solve. And the obvious problem of pulling "unusable" vehicles out of service. Still, it's nice to see a city willing to try a project like this.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Will the driver-less cabs understand the line: "Follow that car!"
:)
If not, the private investigator business is going to get much more difficult...
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Think about it. Either:
1) The "object" threshold is high, which means the first time this kills a toddler, there will be a massive lawsuit
or
2) The "object" threshold is low, which means these will be out of commision the moment a piece of trash crosses their path
Neither setting is workable in a city.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I found their choice of powertrains interesting.
Typically Electric Powertrains are not economically feasible for automobiles. Although The motors are relatively cheap, it's the batteries and motor controllers that create most of the cost.
Why not use an inexpensive proven diesel or gas engine solution? Heck, even Propane or an alternative fuel? My guess is that an electric powertrain controller is more easily controlled via a computer than an I.C. engine. With "throttle by wire" becoming standard on engines, even the control is relatively negligible.
I am not arguing that they are wrong in their decision, I'm just curious to see what influenced it.
Sheesh, don't the editors read /. themselves?
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/17/131721 8&mode=thread
And the brethren went away edified.
Good Subtle, I wish more people would open their minds as you have and reconsider these "one size fits all" tax funded horrors.
At least back before government took over building roads, the only people who paid for them were the ones that used them.
At least it's still legal to home school, even though they won't give you back the taxes they already extracted for that schooling.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
"there would be NO light rail. There would also be no buses, BART, or AMTRACK either.."
And this is bad.....how? I notice that you don't include taxi's in your list.
Before you knee-jerk, think about it: if you had all that tax money that is otherwise removed from your paycheck, what would you do with it?
Might you invest in a local transport project? Might you use it to facilitate your working from home, so you don't have to commute?
Just some considerations to think about before declaring that demand for taxpayer funded transportation would not otherwise be met.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
...because I hear they have lots of road rage.
While ULTra can be deployed more easily for demonstrations, for city-wide deployment, Personal Rapid Transit, a wheel based monorail, seems better: it requires much less space on the ground and is probably overall cheaper. For more info, see CPRT and U. Washington.
The Skytrain in Vancouver, BC runs above ground, and most people didn't mind it. Of course, Vancouver's either on quicksand or bedrock, depending on where you're standing, so underground wasn't exactly an option!
Current technology isn't up to driving in heavy traffic, but some kind of system that uses narrow dedicated roadways, low speeds, and automated low-speed maneuvering in station areas is within reach. Automated materials-handling vehicles in industrial plants have been doing that for almost 20 years now.
A reasonable modern design might look something like this:
What's this 21st century hippy thing about buses ? I no longer bus, I _drive_ my own car to work, despite the greater cash expense (parking, gas, maintenance).
Now when I get to work I find myself fully awake and in a great mood. Much better than reading/sleeping on a slow, always late, overcramped bus with a bunch of loud teens.
I like it so much, that sometimes I leave home 20-30 minutes early and just drive around for the joy of it, with my little subwoofer kicking hard and fast. Driving is like the hormonal impact of watching girls make out, it's a gentle tingly feeling you'd want to hold forever (at least until you run out of gas).
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Look at what we could have had, had our politicians not had their heads up their arses:
Douglas J. Malewicki's SkyTran System
That's right! That was the competitor to what we got, which is a normal, everyday, light rail system (which is somehow supposed to sit adjacent in some fashion to I-17 in some manner, as well as along 19th Avenue - where they plan to find the space, is anybody's guess) - the dollar value of one car (of light rail) could have funded a lot of work on SkyTran - think about that come tax time.
Another thing to think about: Supposedly construction is supposed to start in 2003 - but I have yet to hear anything more on this boondoggle, which I think merely went to line corrupt politician pockets...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You and the "Global warming" set always make dire predictions, but you never back it up.
So prosecute poluters. Invest in a for-profit parking garage. Design and sell telecommuting consultant services.
Chicken Little blind assertions may win elections, but they're useless in an argument.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
You're smart.
"Ask me about Loom"
Which is scarier? artificial intelligence or a NYC cab driver?
My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!
So what? That's not what it's for. From the article:
Advanced Transport Systems estimate that building an ULTra network would cost about one-third to one-half of the amount needed for a light railway.
It's not positioned as an alternative to cars, but to light rail.
Nope, no sig
From the What is ULTra page:
maximum speed 25mph (40kph)
But from the Fact File:
ULTra average speed is about 40 kph
So which is it, maximum speed or average?
Nope, no sig
And it's hardly anything new, there is one that has been running for 30 years at the West-Virginia University, in Morgantown (WV - duh?). (Better pics here).
Private automobiles can travel at perhaps 80-90mph. Whee! Except that in congested cities, cars don't go nearly as fast as their design max speed, or even the legal max speed of 30-35MPH.
Remember, this kind of system is not aimed at your small, suburban college town; if you can fly down streets today at 30-40MPH in your private car pretty much any old time, there is little reason for ANY form of public transporation, period. If you work or travel on the streets of a major city, 15 MPH average speed would sound pretty good. In fact, I suspect there is a minimum average speed that people need to travel at before they give up working in the city, and that is probably fairly low. This drives the need to adopt new technologies and to make major infrastructure changes in a city. If you can't guarantee 10MPH with horse-and-buggies, you have to build roads and parking for autos.
If you do nothing, then transportation becomes a limiting factor in growth, and you may actually contract the size of your city. The question is, if you want to add a 10,000 commuters, what is the best way to accomodate them? There is no general answer to this, it must be answered on a case by case basis.
If you currently have uncongested roads (where cars travel on average close to the legal maximum speed), the cheapest thing would be to just have people come in their private cars. However, if you have congested roads, then adding 10,000 private automobiles would have a large marginal effect on the average travel speed. In other words you get more congested.
In that case, the next step would be to move to busses. If you can get high utilization, then the impact on your existing traffic jams is almost eliminated.
Except that getting high utilization is tough. Travel time on the bus is not so good. The bus moves at the same slow speed as the rest of traffic, but it has to stop to load and unload passengers. This factor is so important in utilization that LA has designed busses for fast load/unload, and given them the ability to change traffic lights as they are approaching intersections.
IIRC there are several significant design features of the system described which combine to allow cars to travel on average much closer to their design maximum than a bus or even a subway. First, end-to-end travel. You don't have to get off to change lines, which saves time. Second, personal travel. The cars are small and serve just you, so you don't have to wait for the cars to load and unload passengers taking different journeys than you. Third, exclusive track/lane. This means that you are not impeded by other vehicles.
Ideally, you could build a "real time" travel system, by which I mean a system which could, barring mechanical break down, deliver a passenger from one point to another in completely predictable time. This in itself would have great value, provided that the average speed was over something like 10 MPH. If you know that you can make a meeting across town in fifteen or twenty minutes, guaranteed, this would eliminate slack time that you would normally plan for the various kinds of unexpected delays. If you could deliver somebody across town at 20MPH average speed guaranteed, for around the cost of a taxi ride, then this would be a popular service.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You must realize that the roadway system is currently supported by taxpayers because all taxpayers and non-taxpayers benefit from it. Since you live in Canada, a developed country, you can't even think that you don't benefit from public roadway systems.
Anyone living in any first-world country greatly benefits from roadway development! How much would it cost to buy your food, clothes, medicine, or other goods and services if there was no way for them to economically arrive at your local vendors?
Taxpayers, and not all citizens pay taxes, fund the construction and maintenance of these roads for the benefit of the local and national economy. The roadway ifrastructure is an engine of commerce!
Light rail, mass transit, etc. are not fair to taxpayers, as not all taxpayers (most) don't use them, and only marginal economic benefit is provided to the local area by them. In the San Jose example sited at the beginning of this thread, the riders (beneficiaries) of the rail system provide revenue of only 1/8 the cost of operation, which is not profitable in any length of time. If the fares were calculated to be break-even, then the ridership is too low. If the fares were increased to make this operation economically feasible, the ridership will fall even lower. The light rail is limited to pedestrian and bike ridership, with no possibility of commercial utility, so there is no benefit to the local economy derrived from it. It simply doesn't work, so the taxpayers get hosed.
The only exceptions, where mass transit is viable, are where large transient populations exist. Primarily, this would be college towns where the local population doubles when school is in session, and tourist traps. In college towns, you have a large "transportationally challenged" subset of the population, and the local economy does derrive substantial benefit from the public transit ridership. In heavy tourism areas, you will find privatized mass transit that can operate successfully while turning a profit.
The roadway system, while not perfect, does provide wealth by making inexpensive commerce possible. It is a worthy enterprise to be funded by the public.
-- Len
No, this is more like Logan's Run. Woo Hoo! Bring on the Tunnel of Love! Oh shit, wait, I've only got 4 years before carnaval then.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
"Where the hell am I?"
"You're in a Johnny-Cab!"
I'm not so sure about that. The same thing that makes buses inefficient makes almost any public transportation system inefficient. You want to foot the bill to build 700 miles of track, or whatever insane amount it would take to give decent coverage to Phoenix? Plus, with the city so spread out, unless the thing can manage an average speed of about 45 mph, it's still going to take forever to get anywhere.
The next step in your reasoning is to realize that you're absolutely correct about everything, and it's time for you to do something about it.
That means, you build the fscknig system and become a multi-billionare from its success.
To force people at gun point to support you is a pathetic excuse for not wanting to do the work yourself. You're taking the easy way out like every blood-sucking bureaucratic vampire in history.
Produce something good, and people will support it without your using force. Have the courage of your convictions and put yourself on the line, rather than using force and coersion to do it.
People might respect you. And you might fail. But this way, they won't hate you.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
First you say "most roads" without supporting it, were toll roads. They you say that roads are "public goods." Which is it?
By your logic, a private road is a public good. I agree. However, then you mention street lights, which I would gladly see ripped out. My tax money is being used to polute the night sky with so much light people cannot see the stars any more. Such abuse is criminal, but since it's the government doing it they cannot be punished.
And you might like this site:
http://www.mises.org/
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics