Slashdot Mirror
Mass Transit Meets The Incredibles
Chuckstar writes "Salon.com has an article about SkyWeb Express, a futuristic-looking mass transit system similar to the monorail in the evil villain's secret lair in The Incredibles. What is unique about this system is that individual 3-passenger cars travel independently between stations, which are located on side-tracks so cars only need to stop at the final destination. Apparently, the system is relatively cheap to install, cost efficient per passenger mile, and much more flexible than traditional mass transit. The New York Post covered the topic last month."
I'm sure that I recall reading about this a couple of months ago, and the question that immediately came to my mind is: what do you do if you have more than three or four passengers? Families of five need not apply and so on.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
Perhaps when all is said and done, the transit routes will be connected to each other, in the same sense of the "world-wide web" and computers.
(I hate it when advertising works. I feel... dirty.).
But you have to build dedicated roads for that. That works a lot better in new cities/neighborhoods. It would be hard, though, to retrofit an existing city with bus-only roads.
Also, buses have the issue that every passenger waits for the bus to slow down, stop, load, unload and get back up to speed at every stop. SkyWeb only stops at your final destination.
When will technology like this actually be put into production in a major American city?
2020? 2030? Never?
I'm really getting completely jaded by hearing of all of these wonderful things being developed, which will be put into production Real Soon Now(TM)...
What about those machines that make just about anything into oil? How many plants based on those things are currently operating in the US? One? Two? Maybe THREE? What percentage of our oil production does that account for? 0.01%? Maybe 0.02%? Maybe less?
Color me skeptical, but inertia has taken such a hold in human endeavors (at least, here in the US) that I get really upset whenever I read of all of these wonderful things which are supposedly coming up "just along the pike", as it were, but which I have to remind myself I will never see in operation in my life.
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
How sad is it that we have gotten to the point where we have forgotten that the word 'web' has meanings other than the World Wide Web?
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Seriously, this might be one of those things like monorails that are built simply because they look futuristic. But they've had a pretty bad record in actual operation, especially in the sort of constant intense daily service that is needed for public transportation. And their cost estimates tend to be somewhat off, though they may just be optimistic for lack of sufficient examples. But monorails, such as the Las Vegas monorail, tend to cost about as much as elevated light rail, if not more. The Las Vegas monorail also opened only after many months of delays, and has now out of service for 3 months after a wheel fell off a train. So I think PRT will stay "poised to replace subways" for a while yet. And if they really did work, then where are the examples?
And other than the technical problems, somehow nobody notices the obvious social one. If you have privacy in a public vehicle, what's to stop you from befouling it in some way? Also, it would be a handy terrorist tool. Just put the bomb in and set the car to go to the target.
The article states that because the cars are powered with electricity, there is no pollution. This really irks me. While there may be no local pollution or emissions, that doesn't mean that the source of the electricity isn't polluting. If the source is solar or wind power, that's great, but in many (most?) cases the source is more likely to be a coal or gas plant, which are definitely not non-polluting.
I'm not saying I don't think this is a great idea, because I think it's terrific. But to say that it is non-polluting probably isn't true.
More sugar!
Why don't people think these through?
What happens when a "car" breaks down on the line? Are there 2 lines? How do maintenance vehicles get there?
What happens when there is a ball game and everyone wants to get off at the same stop and the backup leaks into the main line?
What happens when too many cars are dropped off at one place and not enough at another? Who load balances?
What happens when someone has thrown up in the car at the front of the line and you don't want to get in it, and want to get in the one behind it? Is there a button that says "send this car off for cleaning?" If so, what happens when teenagers keep hitting that button?
Moving things around is a well modeled set of problems, all logistical, not technological.
Mass transit also suffers from another big problem: Because of decreased ridership, it is at times less efficient than cars.
:)
This brings up the most important (IMHO) hurdle to overcome with any mass transit system - getting the American public to give up their cars in favor of cleaner, cheaper, more efficient travel.
It would SEEM like a no-brainer on paper... but we have a long history with the automobile and its representation of freedom. I mean, regardless of which side you fall on, you must admit that nothing feels greater than riding on a highway in the summertime in a convertable with the top down.
Need proof? Look at how much Americans are continually willing to spend on cars, car insurance, and fuel - all of which are getting more expensive by the day. (Here in Chicago this morning, gas was almost $2.40 per gallon for the cheap stuff.)
Anyway, my point is that, while this is a great idea, there is going to have to be a revolutionary change in our feelings about the "freedom of the open road" before any mass transit ideas really take hold. (The exception, of course, being major metro areas, which have redefined said "freedom" to mean traffic jams resulting in 1.5 hour commutes.)
Bottom line - beware any mass transit system that claims it can "break even" - that's not including the marketing costs that will have to go with it. (Again, Chicago Transit Authority, for example, spends A LOT on advertising alone, while jacking up rates almost yearly.)
I hope the land around you yields, a crop like all the other fields, and then your waiting might make sense...
actually, the first comment is a simpsons joke :D
System.out.println(syynnapse.getSig());
Note to SkyWeb PR division: I downloaded and saw your video. Some notes:
Basically, it needs better production values.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
This SkyWeb system is the application of packet-switched networks to material transport. Just as trains and telegraph/phone networks were circuit switched, and changed the world by globalizing the industrial revolution, so can these transport networks change the world again, just like ethernet/Internet changed the world of telecom.
The real changes will come once we've got new applications for these rails, not just adaptations that fix bugs in the old rail circuit apps. One real improvement could be in deliveries: the city could charge vendors bulk rates for off-peak delivery capacity. That could link rail/ship terminals to an intracity network of automated deliveries. You could schedule delivieries to your local station, and pick up the cargo after tracking its realtime delivery, from a locker with your onetime password. That kind of "bulk mail" fee could subsidize the entire system, just as bulk mail now subsidizes the postal system. Leveraging the efficiency of the municipal network to cut costs and increase reliability. And the people routing apps, like emailing an invite, with a prepaid routeplan attached, which is messaged to the car with the push of an embedded button, could get all attendees to and from your event without confusion, delay or complication. Let's get this 21st Century on!
--
make install -not war
Small cities in the midwest and west tend to actually be spread out a lot more than a three or so mile radius, because there is so much open space to work with. People have bigger yards, and want to live further away from their neighbors. Look at cities like Ft Wayne for an example. Everyone is spread out around the edges, and continue to spread further away.
This seems most appropriate for an application like intraurban transportation and not commuter transportion.
What?
Beyond a few thousand people, population is irrelevant to mass transit. Population density and politics remain all important.
If the stations are a mile apart -- that puts you a maximum of a HALF-Mile away from any given station.
Right. Divide my oopsie by two.
If it's a 1 mile grid and you're in the exact center, then you've got a 0.707107 mile to any of four stations.
Only if you can fly - or your neighbors don't mind you tromping over their flower beds and roof, or you can walk through the skyscrapers. (And if you can "leap tall buildings in a single bound" you don't need the train. B-) )
Otherwise you're stuck on the streets. Then what matters is "manhattan distance", the sum of the distances along the axes rather than the hypotenuse of the triangle.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
My theory of graffiti is that it's from people who have low self esteem and don't think that they can leave a mark on the world in any but the most literal sense.
The Curitiba bus system seems extremely cost-effecient and successful. SkyWeb would likely be more expensive and needs to be deployed at a large scale to yield noticeable improvements.
I don't think it is the size of the vehicle (like the SUV you mentioned)...but, the speed it can travel. I'm wondering if we should ban bicycles from the open roads cars are on. It is dangerous to have a bicycle that is hard to see on a road were the majority of vehicles are over 2000lbs..and travelling a minimum of 35 mph.
Its not like we allow horses or carriages on the roads anymore..(with special exceptions like parades and the French Quarter)...
A motorcycle is ok, it can keep up with traffic flow, but, I almost wish bicycles, unless on a bicycle path/lane would not be allowed on public streets. They do hold up traffic, and are a hazard in that and the fact they are hard to see when driving a car.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'm wondering if we should ban bicycles from the open roads cars are on.
Great answer. Lets ban vehicles that use no foreign oil and actually help our health. Society can only benefit from such legislation.
It is dangerous to have a bicycle that is hard to see on a road were the majority of vehicles are over 2000lbs..and traveling a minimum of 35 mph.
You're right, it's dangerous. But what do you think of banning cars instead? I've never heard of an SUV driver biting the dust because he was hit by a reckless cyclist.
They do hold up traffic, and are a hazard in that and the fact they are hard to see when driving a car.
Pedestrians are even slower and harder to see. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed either?
In all seriousness, Americans have a hell of a hard time seeing past the thing that benefits them the most at the moment. We complain about gas prices and our collectively ballooning waistlines, but all we can see is that guy on the bike "slowing us down." Let's ban him?
I moved from a nice small city in California that was about 7-8 miles across. The roads and the downtown area were designed for easy access by bikes. They were used heavily by both cars and bikes. And you know what? Life was beautiful there. Cars could get where they were going and bikes could get where they were going and traffic was something somebody else in some other city had to deal with. Bikes were a very real part of "the solution" because they kept that traffic low because, you see, bikes take up significantly less space than cars on the road.
Now I live in Northern Virginia in the DC Metro Area. Everybody drives. But if you try riding your bike a few things become quickly evident. The roads are not designed with bikes in mind. in order for you to go down the road you HAVE to get in the way of cars. There are a few bike paths, but they don't go anywhere. It's kind of like a 4-lane highway in the middle of a corn field. Useless.
The sidewalks are the same way. You see them all over the place, but they never connect. You literally can't walk a block down the street to get the morning paper in most places. You have to walk out in the street to get there.
And you know what? The traffic sucks. It doesn't just suck on the highway, but all over. I can't prove that the reason is because they designed without bikes in mind, but I can tell you that both cyclists and drivers hate cycling for any utilitarian purpose so almost nobody rides. Instead they drive, usually big SUVs or minivans, and take up a lot more space on the road.
What does all this rambling mean? Ride more and drive less. If you want to ban anything, think about the end result. We are not better off because we drive cars more and bike less.
TW
Oh, that one's easy. Engineering said "No way" and Sales said "No problem!" Haven't you ever played that game?