I believe this automated load-balancing "packet-routing" approach to mass transit is inevitable. An efficient individual car system can really move people; just ask Disneyland.
I won't contest that SkyWeb beats conventional mass transit in every way -- in most ways even rickshaws would -- but I wonder if it's the best of the competing ideas out there.
SkyWeb appears clunky compared to SkyTran (interview with the inventor Part 1 and Part 2.). The SkyTran system looks like it could be lighter, faster (they have a target of 100 mph), slightly easier to use, more convenient wrt station placement, quicker to install and more flexible in terms of installation (can attach to existing buildings, very small ground-level footprint), more tolerant of inclement weather, and up to ten times cheaper meaning up to ten times the rail length/station nodes of SkyWeb for the same money.
But SkyWeb may be further along in their development cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe this automated load-balancing "packet-routing" approach to mass transit is inevitable. An efficient individual car system can really move people; just ask Disneyland.
I won't contest that SkyWeb beats conventional mass transit in every way -- in most ways even rickshaws would -- but I wonder if it's the best of the competing ideas out there.
SkyWeb appears clunky compared to SkyTran (interview with the inventor Part 1 and Part 2.). The SkyTran system looks like it could be lighter, faster (they have a target of 100 mph), slightly easier to use, more convenient wrt station placement, quicker to install and more flexible in terms of installation (can attach to existing buildings, very small ground-level footprint), more tolerant of inclement weather, and up to ten times cheaper meaning up to ten times the rail length/station nodes of SkyWeb for the same money.
But SkyWeb may be further along in their development cycle.
SkyTran's website leaves something to be desired, but it's entertaining.