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."
Mono-doh!
Why in the heck is the word "Web" in SkyWeb?
"Ha ha! We will put the word 'web' in our product's name! It has a computer! From the future!"
"travel independently between stations", "cheap to install "cost efficient per passenger mile" "much more flexible than traditional mass transit" Gauranteed to never be implemented anywhere
If you forget about the future, the future will forget about you.
Maybe Lenard Nimoy is available for the opening.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
This is far better than both a "mass transit" train or a car.
For a better and simpler solution look to Curbita's bus system in Brazil. They just set aside roads for bus only, give them chrome boxes so they always get a green light, and make the bus stop the pay station so you can load and unload quickly. A system like Curbita requires nothing more than a better bus stop and large doors and moves more people than a subway at a fraction of the cost. Their system cost $.25 a ride and makes a profit.
The other is, never do a movie when Vicini is a manager over insurance agents!!! Hahahahahah!!! *gasp* /dead
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
For those of us who don't have a premium subscription and don't want to watch an ad:
Car ports
How those eerily beautiful bubble cars in "The Incredibles" may well appear in our not-too-distant future.
By Priya Jain
Nov. 19, 2004 | In "The Incredibles," the eponymous superhero family spends much of the movie trying to either escape or infiltrate the villain's high-tech island lair. Among the creepy sci-fi elements -- parrots with camera eyes, a destructive robot that can strategize -- is the beautifully eerie monorail that silently glides around the volcano, transporting the villain's henchmen in small round cars. The heroes occasionally hitch a ride on one of these moving pods while battling the forces of evil.
In real life, we may not have superheroes, but soon we will have those little monorail cars, zipping commuters and shoppers (and maybe an occasional henchman) from point A to point B. They're part of a system called Personal Rapid Transit, or PRT, which is poised to replace the more expensive, less environmentally friendly and frequently less convenient mass transit systems of old.
What really makes PRT different from mass transit is that it combines the convenience and luxury of a taxi with the efficiency of subway and bus travel: Rather than packing into a large carriage with a hundred smelly strangers, with PRT you get a private car. Instead of stopping at every station on the line, you zip straight to your final destination. And the visual impact -- replacing the bulky steel trains and buses with sleek bubbles that look like mid-century creations from the designer Arne Jacobsen -- appeals to any kid who dreamt of being a Jetson, or now, an Incredible.
Leading the way in the PRT revolution is the Minnesota-based Taxi 2000 Corporation, founded in 1983 by Dr. J. Edward Anderson, a former NASA engineer who turned his attention to transit in 1968. After studying the problems with conventional mass transit, he developed SkyWeb Express, which is poised to be the first commercial PRT system in the world.
Anderson claims SkyWeb Express beats mass transit in every way: It's greener, more convenient, safer and visually more acceptable, since the cars and rail are streamlined and small (observe this comparison between the New York subway and a SkyWeb system). The cars, unlike the round pods in "The Incredibles," are egg-shaped, and allow enough room for three to four people plus their shopping bags, luggage and wheelchair or bicycle. They run on synthetic rubber tires, which reduce noise pollution, along a monorail guideway that's 3 feet wide by 3 feet deep. And because the system is powered by 600-volt DC electricity, it produces no emissions.
As Taxi 2000 imagines the scenario, commuters would enter the station, purchase a fare card and head to the platform -- just as one does now with most rail systems. But instead of waiting for a train to come by, passengers would hop into one of the empty cars that are idling in the station, swipe their card and enter a destination code. Because stations are positioned "offline" -- that is, the rail runs next to the station, not through it -- cars can pull into stops without slowing down traffic.
SkyWeb Express may also be the answer to the seemingly impossible quandary that every environmental advocate faces: how to make green technologies cost-effective. Taxi 2000 estimates that installation of SkyWeb Express would cost $10 million per mile -- nearly five times less than the cost of light rail and 10 times less than heavy rail. And operating costs at 38 cents per passenger mile (compared to $3.43 for heavy rail and $1.42 for light rail) mean that SkyWeb Express could operate on a break-even basis -- and therefore without the government subsidies that mass transit, which operates at a loss, relies on. The guideway also weighs less and is easier to assemble than light or heavy rail, and in fact the guideway can be installed by an ordinary fork-lift truck, only minimally disrupting regular traffic and there
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
First, there is more than one car on the system. If you have more than three, take extra cars.
But why three, and not four, or five? The reason I've read in the past is this:
Three is the smallest number of occupants that guarantees that no members of a group need to ride alone.
If the cars held two, and your group of three arrived, then someone would have to ride by themselves. Not fun, and socially difficult.
It's true that if the cars held four, the same system would work (five people go in three and two). There is, however, significant expense to adding another passenger space. You'd either have to make them wider. This would increase the space between the railings, and the overall construction cost in addition to the car cost. You could add another row of seats, but that would increase the complexity and cost of the car.
Three is the right number.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
It would be interesting to see how they design stations which have a large amount of congestion at various times of the day. I'm guess their graphic is a typical station, but the waiting traffic would easily overrun the main track in even the smallest city.
:)
Perhaps they can just get away with making the station rail longer? A by-passible loop or two that are introduced during rush hour? (Or when someone cracks into the control system
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
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!
My first thought about a weakness here is during rush hour. How will the system handle a very popula destination station where there are more vehicles waiting to unload their passengers than the station has spots at the terminal for, and room on the side-track? Seems this would back up the transit track. It just doesn't seem like the system could handle the sheer volume of a metropolitan rush hour (I'm using Wash., D.C. and the METRO system as my point-of-reference).
Erm -- If the stations are a mile apart -- that puts you a maximum of a HALF-Mile away from any given station. That is of course using linear measurement. 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. So from the exact center of one to the exact center of another would be a 1.414214 mile walk. The theory is that there would always be cars in each station -- so while you would have to walk .7 (max) to your station, you would be able to get in a car and head for your destination immediately. The tracks are set up to be one way -- so you may need to do some looping around (longer trip) but it should be non-stop -- trip time should be much shorter than bus.
Is this workable? Maybe, it probably depends in large part upon location. To me it seems like a possible solution to road expansion in certain areas. Will the road construction lobby work hard to make sure it's stillborn? You bet.
(Check the funding for debt -- derail the bullet train group in florida)
WVU PRT
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Note to SkyWeb PR division: I downloaded and saw your video. Some notes:
Basically, it needs better production values.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
the Denver International Airport baggage handling
system. While they worked the bugs out of that,
baggage got destroyed, dumped into strange places,
put on the wrong flights, and so on.
You too can experience this now, personally.
"No rear-end or merging collisions, because the vehicles are not operating independently. All are communicating with a central computer system that keeps tabs on traffic throughout the network. In principal it works like this: Cars continuously report their positions (every 40 milliseconds in Taxi 2000), and the central computer system tracks their location; the two sets of data are continuously compared. If a vehicle does something it's not supposed to do (such as follow too close, stop unexpectedly, a mechanical breakdown, or even if the vehicle's reporting signal is interrupted), the central system will send commands to fix or avoid problems-- "deccelerate for 3 seconds", for example. This system is always in operation, ensuring safe distances between vehicles whether on straightaways or at junctions."
With regard to getting out of a stopped car,
"There are over 70 elevated automated transit systems operating in the world today that prove that a vehicle stopping when not intended is a very rare event. If a vehicle does stop between stations, Central Control will talk with the passengers through an intercom system and guide the rescue operation. The vehicle behind will soft engage and push the disabled vehicle to the nearest station. In the very unlikely event that the vehicle can't be moved, a rescue team will come with a ladder and help the passengers out of the vehicle."
http://www.skywebexpress.com/1414_between_stations .shtml