DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Interzen

Cirrus: Archimedes Screw was an old idea that didn't work but that didn't stop Igor Sikorsky from building a working helicopter.

Which is why I'm perfectly happy letting private inventors spend their own money trying to make it work. No one here suggests banning PRT research. If someone can produce a practical model, then we'll think about whether it might be worth trying out somewhere. But with limited transportation money available, lots of priorities to spend it on, and a history of bad results, responsible governments must not divert 1 cent to this or anything like it.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Which is why I'm perfectly happy letting private inventors spend their own money trying to make it work. No one here suggests banning PRT research. If someone can produce a practical model, then we'll think about whether it might be worth trying out somewhere. But with limited transportation money available, lots of priorities to spend it on, and a history of bad results, responsible governments must not divert 1 cent to this or anything like it.

But as soon as someone claims to have created a practical model you jump all over it before you even know the details even though nobody is proposing to spend any government money beyond the research already being done by NASA. Are you suggesting NASA should only research technology already proven by private industry.

The diversion of public funds argument doesn't hold water when the project proponent is proposing an entirely privately funded build out and hasn't even mentioned tax increment financing. Could you be afraid they will disprove your deeply held beliefs?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Interzen

But as soon as someone claims to have created a practical model.

Because they're not saying anything different than all the previous failed models. Once again: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and so far we've seen plenty of negative evidence and no positive evidence.

I haven't said they should stop, have I? More power to them if they want to keep trying. In fact, this is now the 3rd time I've said that in this thread alone. I'm not sure why you're upset with me, except maybe that you're in the mood to fantasize and don't want to have a discussion about practicality. I guess that's OK, but maybe if that's what you want we should start a separate thread, and also talk about warp drive and transporters (did you know NASA had a warp drive research department up until a few years ago? I hope it comes back and they succeed, but I'm not holding my breath).

[CharlesCO]

What I object to isn't that a private investor wants to build this, but that it's presented to the public in the press with little scrutiny. There are so many complex issues with this and almost every other transit proposal — ROW acquisition, land prices, construction costs, basic financing — that are either greatly simplified or even glanced over completely in public journalism, and if we want to have a discussion about how to best serve transit users between Boulder and Longmont, then we need to take all of these factors into consideration. That's not to say that the same deficiencies in reporting aren't also present in reporting about current transit technology, but we especially need to be aware of these challenges that are inherent to all transit if the proposal in question is *also* proposing an unproven technology (not disproven necessarily, but unproven).

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Because they're not saying anything different than all the previous failed models.

That is a categorically false statement. I'm not talking about investor hype, I'm talking about the underlying technology and system layout which is significantly different and more advanced than any of it's predecessors. Nobody has even used passive mag-lev before let alone this particular switched track linear motor small car configuration with automated computer control and on demand reservation so a vehicle is waiting and reserved when you reach the platform. I also want to dispel the myth that advanced technologies are inherently more expensive. There are uncountable examples of a more advanced technology replacing an older one and reducing costs at the same time.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

What I object to isn't that a private investor wants to build this, but that it's presented to the public in the press with little scrutiny. There are so many complex issues with this and almost every other transit proposal — ROW acquisition, land prices, construction costs, basic financing — that are either greatly simplified or even glanced over completely in public journalism, and if we want to have a discussion about how to best serve transit users between Boulder and Longmont, then we need to take all of these factors into consideration.

Actually the TV news reports I heard made certain to point out that they would still have to obtain the right of way which could be more difficult than developing the technology was.

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

That's not to say that the same deficiencies in reporting aren't also present in reporting about current transit technology, but we especially need to be aware of these challenges that are inherent to all transit if the proposal in question is *also* proposing an unproven technology (not disproven necessarily, but unproven).

I whole heatedly agree and like your clarification on your use of the word unproven.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I'm not sure why you're upset with me, except maybe that you're in the mood to fantasize and don't want to have a discussion about practicality. I guess that's OK, but maybe if that's what you want we should start a separate thread, and also talk about warp drive and transporters (did you know NASA had a warp drive research department up until a few years ago? I hope it comes back and they succeed, but I'm not holding my breath).

Did I come across as upset. I don't think I am. Just a little miffed by your dismissive attitude without acquiring any detailed facts to justify your position. If you base all decisions solely on past experience without allowing for the possibility that circumstances have changed since you formed your knowledge base you are destined to live in the past and be disappointed when your predictions don't pan out

EDIT: plus I like to hear myself talk

did I mention I hate monorails.

P.S. this system is in the prototype stage and so far seems to meet expectations. Comparing it to warp drive is just immature and silly.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I'm talking about the underlying technology and system layout which is significantly different and more advanced than any of it's predecessors.

Technology has never been the problem with any of the past efforts. The technology always works. We don't built them because there's always been a better and cheaper way to achieve the same goal. That's what hasn't changed here. If we wanted this kind of system, it would be better and cheaper to build a lane just for car2gos, and give them exclusive use of it. We wouldn't even need a real lane, since car2gos are so much smaller and lighter than the trucks we have to build road lanes to carry. It could look more like a bike path.

That's the competition for this. It has to be cheaper than a bike path.

Incidentally, bikesharing is basically low-tech PRT on existing infrastructure. When you take out the need for duplicate elevated structure, it turns out PRT works great. I predict the next big change to bikesharing will be addition of electric-assist bikes, so less physically capable people can use it too.

If you base all decisions solely on past experience without allowing for the possibility that circumstances have changed since you formed your knowledge base you are destined to live in the past and be disappointed when your predictions don't pan out

True, but if you base all your decisions solely on hoping for the best without having learned any lessons from history, you are destined to live in a fantasy world and be disappointed when history repeats itself time after time after time. I'm open to being proven wrong. I'm open to new ideas. But another hyped PRT proposal with extremely questionable cost estimates that appears to be making all the same mistakes as previous efforts is... shall I say... unimpressive.

That's a good word for this. It's not that it's absolutely impossible. It's that it's unimpressive. Sans some reason to think it's different in any way that matters, which we don't have.

plus I like to hear myself talk

Me too. Bunt especially.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Technology has never been the problem with any of the past efforts. The technology always works. We don't built them because there's always been a better and cheaper way to achieve the same goal. That's what hasn't changed here. If we wanted this kind of system, it would be better and cheaper to build a lane just for car2gos, and give them exclusive use of it. We wouldn't even need a real lane, since car2gos are so much smaller and lighter than the trucks we have to build road lanes to carry. It could look more like a bike path.

That's the competition for this. It has to be cheaper than a bike path.

Incidentally, bikesharing is basically low-tech PRT on existing infrastructure. When you take out the need for duplicate elevated structure, it turns out PRT works great. I predict the next big change to bikesharing will be addition of electric-assist bikes, so less physically capable people can use it too.

True, but if you base all your decisions solely on hoping for the best without having learned any lessons from history, you are destined to live in a fantasy world and be disappointed when history repeats itself time after time after time. I'm open to being proven wrong. I'm open to new ideas. But another hyped PRT proposal with extremely questionable cost estimates that appears to be making all the same mistakes as previous efforts is... shall I say... unimpressive.

That's a good word for this. It's not that it's absolutely impossible. It's that it's unimpressive. Sans some reason to think it's different in any way that matters, which we don't have.

Me too. Bunt especially.

Even if they went driver-less I doubt a car2go bike path could acheive anything approaching a 100th the throughput possible on a separated system like the one described by Ames. You are just holding on to the belief that a shared personal system cannot be as efficient as the personalized auto system we already have which may be the case, but the only thing I have asked is that you except the possibility that could change. You seem to be indicating just that so I'm ready to move on.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I'm talking about the underlying technology and system layout which is significantly different and more advanced than any of it's predecessors. Nobody has even used passive mag-lev before let alone this particular switched track linear motor small car configuration with automated computer control and on demand reservation so a vehicle is waiting and reserved when you reach the platform. I also want to dispel the myth that advanced technologies are inherently more expensive. There are uncountable examples of a more advanced technology replacing an older one and reducing costs at the same time.

Only the propulsion technology appears to have changed. I don't see anything new here about the actual structure - the expensive part - and everything that goes with getting it built. RTD isn't stalled in the northwest corridor because the vehicles are too expensive - it's everything else that's the problem. NOTHING gets built for $10 million per mile, period. That'll barely cover your legal. And saying you can do it for roller coaster costs is exactly what every other PRT proposal in the past has said, and failed to achieve. That's not new. Nothing about that is new. The laws of physics and materials have not changed, and I haven't seen anything here to convince me they have developed technology to elevate structures more affordably than anybody else can. (But if they have, we could just as easily incorporate that technology with Cirrus's bike path - elevate any mode and it'll work better.)

Unless you're willing to be skeptical of cost estimates (which I am guessing you know little or nothing about, so you're more willing to accept them at face value than the rest of us), then there's no real discussion to be had. The technology is irrelevant unless its cost-benefit is competitive. The United Federation of Planets doesn't have to work within money constraints - we do (both private and public players).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

a shared personal system

Nice. Going to add that one to the wikipedia page under "oxymoron."

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Nice. Going to add that one to the wikipedia page under "oxymoron."

Yea, I saw that after I posted it but didn't feel like editing it. I was trying to refer to individual vehicles per trip. I guess I meant a personalized shared system versus personal private vehicles.

Again, I hate monorails, don't really want these built above my sidewalks and have as many reservations as anyone else about how ready or needed this technology is. I also realize that no transportation today actually get's built for anything approaching $10mil/mile. That still does not make it technically impossible. Most of the systems in use and being built today require massive amounts of sight surveys, engineering, grading, base amendment and compacting, large amounts of labor and specialized equipment, and yes lawyers (however I don't think they should be included in the per mile construction costs. Do you bill by the mile?)

In my opinion to create a ubiquitous, cost efficient transportation alternative that approaches or surpasses the user convenience of today's auto network we cannot design, engineer and construct every foot individually. Efficiency comes from repetition. You can't get that efficiency unless you build a system that is made up of standardized interchangeable modules that can be manufactured with assembly line like efficiency and installed with minimal site preparation by a small number of laborers using minimal equipment.

I have read Cirrus' list of reasons why monorails don't work but I can't seem to find it in search. From memory some of those issues are specifically addressed by this system and if I had the list I would tick them off.

I also understand that, historically, building mag lev and other advanced guideway systems has proven less then effective or cost efficient and that there are well proven alternatives that currently cost much less. That still doesn't mean that it's a permanent dead end. The technology presented here is a major step towards drastically simplifying said systems, which was my original comment that somehow sparked this debate.

I continue to advocate for putting all our collective effort towards promoting immediate construction of as much proven mass transit technology as possible and warranted. I also advocate at least some amount of research, design and prototyping of alternative technologies with the idea it's possible there are better alternatives. If some investor want's to run with a public research product and attempt to build something physical using private money I say good for them. If they successfully build a demonstrator and it actually meets projected expectations, which I agree is a total long shot, then why not let them try and build the real thing. I'm not saying Boulder County should do anything or spend any effort on this at this point, or likely any time soon.

Edit: My point with the roller coaster comparison is that it is possible to build an elevated structure for the price which you claim can't be done. Just because others have made the same comparison and their projects failed does not make it any less true that there are existing examples of elevated structures much more robust than described in this system built for less than 10mil/mile. And roller coasters are constructed from unique individually designed, engineered, and constructed components not interchangeable modules. Some modern ones also use linear motors likely similar to the ones being used in this system only the active components in the monorail are moved from track to the vehicle.

Edit Edit: Roller coasters are actually just an offshoot of our countries rail system of a hundred years ago re-purposed for short distance high thrill transportation. They have necessarily evolved along a much more extreme path than our utilitarian transportation systems. It's not really hard to believe that there may eventually be some technology transfer back to the mainstream systems.

[bunt_q]

Show me a picture of a roller coaster that has anything close to the same structural components you'd expect to see running elevated above a city street. And the types of carriages you'd expect to be utilized for a public transportation system. I'm curious. Seems like apples and oranges to me.

What problem are you trying to solve? I think that's the fundamental question here - what are you trying to accomplish that the automobile doesn't already do just as well? That has always been PRT's challenge. You have individual transportation, but you're tied to a fixed infrastructure like mass transit. So you lose the economies of scale of mass transit (technology might address that, but hasn't yet), with all of the last-mile problems and other things that make transit inherently difficult in most of the U.S.

Let me ask you this - how is a park-and-ride-based PRT system an improvement over a better road? You're already in your car when you get to your little module. Wouldn't you prefer they just make a better road so you don't have to transfer?

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Show me a picture of a roller coaster that has anything close to the same structural components you'd expect to see running elevated above a city street. And the types of carriages you'd expect to be utilized for a public transportation system.

The carriages in question here hold a maximum three passengers and are likely much smaller and lighter than anything you might "expect to be utilized for a public transportation system."
Edit: although the closest analogy size and proximity wise might be small cable cars or a ski gondola.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I'm curious. Seems like apples and oranges to me.

It is a little, but you simply said "no elevated structure is built for 10mil/mile".

Originally Posted by bunt_q

What problem are you trying to solve? I think that's the fundamental question here - what are you trying to accomplish that the automobile doesn't already do just as well? That has always been PRT's challenge. You have individual transportation, but you're tied to a fixed infrastructure like mass transit. So you lose the economies of scale of mass transit (technology might address that, but hasn't yet), with all of the last-mile problems and other things that make transit inherently difficult in most of the U.S.

Let me ask you this - how is a park-and-ride-based PRT system an improvement over a better road? You're already in your car when you get to your little module. Wouldn't you prefer they just make a better road so you don't have to transfer?

I have stated many times that the ultimate use of this type of technology is not park and ride commuters.

Sure that's what this specific investor proposal is but I consider it more of a technology demonstrator that may possibly generate some revenue (not likely) but is not a solution for long distance commuting unless it also was built out to close proximity to the residences of most commuters. It would still be nice to see Colorado in Popular Science if it was actually built

If you don't believe that, at least in high density urban areas, our current auto based system is likely to fall short of society's future needs at some point unless augmented or replaced, no matter how many capital improvements we make, than I don't think there is any hope for us understanding each others positions.'

I'm not trying to solve any urgent problem, just like people following Orville and Wilbur's work on powered flight with keen interest were not trying to solve any pressing problem, but their work ended up being pretty useful. If someone successfully creates a workable system that can be physically constructed at 10mil/mile then we are a bit closer to having a system that could become ubiquitous in high density metro areas to the point that it does not require that people living in relatively high density still have to drive to a park and ride or make several bus transfers to access the system. Do I want it to be this particular system? Probably not but I'm not going to demonize and trivialize those trying to expand the options we have to meet specific transportation needs, I'm going to cheer them on and hope some advances make it back into the mainstream. It's that simple.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

The carriages in question here hold a maximum three passengers and are likely much smaller and lighter than anything you might "expect to be utilized for a public transportation system."



It is a little, but you simply said "no elevated structure is built for 10mil/mile".



I have stated many times that the ultimate use of this type of technology is not park and ride commuters.

Sure that's what this specific investor proposal is but I consider it more of a technology demonstrator that may possibly generate some revenue (not likely) but is not a solution for long distance commuting unless it also was built out to close proximity to the residences of most commuters. It would still be nice to see Colorado in Popular Science if it was actually built

If you don't believe that, at least in high density urban areas, our current auto based system is likely to fall short of society's future needs at some point unless augmented or replaced, no matter how many capital improvements we make, than I don't think there is any hope for us understanding each others positions.'

I'm not trying to solve any problem, just like people following Orville and Wilbur's work on powered flight with keen interest were not trying to solve any pressing problem. If someone successfully creates a workable system that can be physically constructed at 10mil/mile then we are a bit closer to having a system that could become ubiquitous in high density metro areas to the point that it does not require that people living in relatively high density still have to drive to a park and ride or make several bus transfers to access the system. Do I want it to be this particular system? Probably not but I'm not going to demonize and trivialize those trying to expand the options we have to meet specific transportation needs, I'm going to cheer them on and hope some advances make it back into the mainstream. It's that simple.

So wait, you're not looking for a new form of mass transit. You're looking for a technology that you think will be able to supplant the car period - as in, replace every street with this new technology? Even my dumpy little side street to my home?

Yeah, that's the end of the discussion then. I thought we were having a serious transportation discussion, not an "ooh, neat" popular science/new technology discussion.

You go ahead dream. I'll solve actual problems. We can leave it at that. When you have a tool I can use, then we'll talk. In the meantime, I'll look for what you're proposing in the next remake of Total Recall, which should be coming out in 10 years or so. Or maybe it'll Blade Runner.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So wait, you're not looking for a new form of mass transit. You're looking for a technology that you think will be able to supplant the car period - as in, replace every street with this new technology? Even my dumpy little side street to my home?

No. I said AUGMENTED or replaced and you will be dead long before any of this happens and your road will likely be paved and more heavily populated by then or it's residents, living in such low density will have to drive to access the system.

When I say ubiquitous I mean in the way our bus system is ubiquitous in the Denver Metro today. I agree that system does an OK job of meeting our current needs but many who can use it opt to drive just to save time and avoid transfers and other inconveniences. If a personalized system served the same routes and stops but went directly to your destination in a vehicle containing only those you choose to ride with, I assume more people would take advantage. Especially if the trip was non-stop and faster than driving. I know you see this as just duplicating what we already have but some of us see the possibility for numerous advantages over what we have now. That's really a different discussion and this is wordy enough.

I think you get too incensed and type your responses before reading most of my text.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yeah, that's the end of the discussion then. I thought we were having a serious transportation discussion, not an "ooh, neat" popular science/new technology discussion.

I never said it was, in fact in my second or third post on the subject I said these exact words: Nobody is saying anything more than "wow that's neat, I wonder if it will go anywhere"

The rest has just been debunking the type of thinking that there will never be viable systems other than minor permutations upon already proven and utilized technology, and the trivialization of anyone attempting to look beyond that limitation for possible future systems. This type of thinking causes people to dismiss new attempts at implementing novel technologies without even investigating how the new system addresses previous inadequacies and what progress is being made.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You go ahead dream. I'll solve actual problems. We can leave it at that. When you have a tool I can use, then we'll talk. In the meantime, I'll look for what you're proposing in the next remake of Total Recall, which should be coming out in 10 years or so. Or maybe it'll Blade Runner.

It is possible to dream about the future and simultaneously work with what we have in the present.

[bunt_q]

Still sounds to me like there's some problem you're trying to address, but you haven't yet identified what that problem is.

Even NASA, while thinking up crazy stuff, has a problem in mind. People need to poop in space - let's invent something. The next star is awfully far away, we better think about warp drive. DARPA's the same way - we want to kill stuff in bad weather - let's build a drone with lasers.

What problem are you trying to solve? You have to identify how cars are not meeting our needs before we can assess whether another imagined personal transport system is doing it better. You can't just start from the assumption that cars are inherently bad, therefore we need something else that does everything they do without being them.

The closest you've come is a PRT system that's widespread enough to function like a bus system. Now if technology can do that, that's worth talking about. But it's still just dreaming - but with what we have now, a cost competitive elevated PRT is about as real as discussing transporters. Occam's razor tells me that google-driven cars that bunch us up safely when capacity dictates a need for it are much more likely than a dramatic, transformative change. Just like Roman chariot roads became, train tracks, became highways - incremental, simple change is more often how things progress.

And transporters are way cooler, if we're just daydreaming for fun.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Still sounds to me like there's some problem you're trying to address, but you haven't yet identified what that problem is.

Even NASA, while thinking up crazy stuff, has a problem in mind. People need to poop in space - let's invent something. The next star is awfully far away, we better think about warp drive. DARPA's the same way - we want to kill stuff in bad weather - let's build a drone with lasers.

This is NASA. It was developed at the Ames Research Laboratory.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Occam's razor tells me that google-driven cars that bunch us up safely when capacity dictates a need for it are much more likely than a dramatic, transformative change. Just like Roman chariot roads became, train tracks, became highways - incremental, simple change is more often how things progress.

Agreed, although evolution is often not as effective as revolution. I can hear your response now, "so your calling for a revolution of our transportation system." No, I'm just saying we should stay open minded in the long term.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And transporters are way cooler, if we're just daydreaming for fun.

More non-relevant trivialization, there are no working prototypes of transporter technology unless you count transporting entangled particle states. This system uses all well known and understood technologies, is actively being prototyped, with investors talking about building something within two years. you just proved my point.

Once again, while I do believe there is plenty of room to improve over our current systems in many different ways, I never claimed this was a solution to any currently pressing problem. Just an interesting possible step towards expanding our toolbox.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

This system uses all well known and understood technologies, is actively being prototyped, with investors talking about building something within two years. you just proved my point.

How much money are you willing to bet on this? I am saying not a single mile of test track for this gets built in Colorado in the next decade for two simple reasons: (1) it does not address any actual problem or give us any improvement over what we already have or could do more cheaply by other means, and therefore has no prospect of a financial return for the private sector (and no reason to even look at it for the government); and (2) the cost estimates are fundamentally flawed, and this will get laughed out of the room by the money men.

Name your bet. No limits.

EDIT: For the record, I don't think there is any problem with our current transportation system that can't be solved with current technology. Heck, there's no problem that can't be solved with 19th century technology. Our problems are money and political willpower, and no amount of whiz bang technology can fix that. You seem to assume some great sense of disdain for the current state of America's transportation infrastructure (a lot of people on here do). Most Americans, I believe, think it generally works just fine. When was the last time anything transportation-related ranked even in the top-10 of problems folks cite in polls? That's not a recipe for a revolution.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

How much money are you willing to bet on this? I am saying not a single mile of test track for this gets built in Colorado in the next decade for two simple reasons: (1) it does not address any actual problem or give us any improvement over what we already have or could do more cheaply by other means, and therefore has no prospect of a financial return for the private sector (and no reason to even look at it for the government); and (2) the cost estimates are fundamentally flawed, and this will get laughed out of the room by the money men.

Name your bet. No limits.

Obviously I'm not going to take that bet. I know it's about as likely to get built between Boulder and Longmont in the next 10 years as fastracks rail is. Maybe even slightly less

I was just illustrating the ridiculousness of your implication that the current state of this technology is equivalent to that of transporters.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

EDIT: For the record, I don't think there is any problem with our current transportation system that can't be solved with current technology. Heck, there's no problem that can't be solved with 19th century technology. Our problems are money and political willpower, and no amount of whiz bang technology can fix that. You seem to assume some great sense of disdain for the current state of America's transportation infrastructure (a lot of people on here do). Most Americans, I believe, think it generally works just fine. When was the last time anything transportation-related ranked even in the top-10 of problems folks cite in polls? That's not a recipe for a revolution."

You keep talking about our present system, which I agree any deficiencies must be addressed with current technology. I have only spoken about anticipating the future. If you plan strictly for today's needs your efforts will likely fall short of tomorrows requirements. In the world of transportation where implementations can take many decades the future is always relevant.

I challenge you to find one quote not taken out off context where I disparage the current state of our system to the level you suggest. The worst I remember saying is that some who could ride buses opt for auto because of time and convenience, and that at some unknown point in the future we may need to look into some alternatives to just building the same thing indefinitely. I obviously realize that as a whole we are in the upper percentiles in over all transportation infrastructure.