Quote:
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.