DENVER | Transportation Thread

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Meanwhile, in Boulder:



http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-c...mand#idc-cover

I hate it when this kind of stuff gets reported to the press as if it's a legitimate idea...

Even if this hybrid mag-lev/monorail system proves to be as uneconomical and/or inefficient as it's predecessors of each linage there is interesting new technology at play.

They are using a passive levitation system combined with some sort of linear motor all housed in what seems to be about a 10" diameter segmented cylindrical tube that doubles as the stator attached to a slightly larger box beam that seems to provide the structure and likely houses the permanent magnets that provide the lift when the vehicles top 10MPH. I assume it is supported by wheels in the box section under that speed. The diminutive guide-way system can only support light weight small passenger count vehicles but would likely be much less expensive to build out than existing high passenger count vehicle systems that operate in dedicated ROWs. NASA's Ames Research Center where the design was developed claims sub $10mil per mile (I assume bidirectional but I haven't seen that specified).

I wonder though how much throughput they would be able to achieve . In one video I counted a vehicle every 2+ seconds so if they averaged 2 riders per vehicle that would be a rider per second. That would be 3600 per hour per guide way as a theoretical maximum at that particular speed and spacing which appeared to be about 30-40 MPH and about 50 ft separation. I suppose how fast the switches are would be a limiting factor in reducing separation but it may be possible to dynamically adjust spacing to isolate a vehicle being switched off the trunk and provide enough time for the switch to cycle.

Even if it goes nowhere it's still cool and who can complain if, at least at this point, it's only private equity with skin to lose.

[Cirrus]

We should be dismissive of it. Monorails, maglevs, and PRT have all been around a long time, and none has caught on because none are practical. We have no reason to think combining them would make them practical, nor any reason to believe this person's wildly optimistic cost estimates are anything but fantasy, nor that he could fund the project even if his estimates are accurate. This is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I don't object to someone investing their own money in this, but file it in the believe it when you see it category. Sort of like the hyperloop (but less nefarious, since unlike Elon Musk, this person presumably isn't trying to sabotage a legitimate rail project).

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Why are you so easily dismissive of alternative forms of transportation? If it doesn't raise your tax dollars, then why do you care? It's solving a need by getting people from point A to point B in a quick and inexpensive manner. So, why not consider it? It sure beats paying bicycle taxis $2 per block to slowly wander across town.

It's a niche market, obviously, but assuming they get granted right-of-way access - I bet this idea would become heavily utilized. I know that if I could get across town in 5 minutes for less than 3 bucks, I'd sure as hell use it.

And thank you for confirming exactly why reporting this as if it's a legitimate option is damaging to real transportation. Because fools are easily suckered.

Don't you think that if a private PRT system was financially viable, someone, somewhere, would've built one by now? These ideas have been popping up for four decades now. Still nobody's managed to take it beyond the bar napkin.

And far be it for me to defend RTD's financial management. But it sure doesn't help public perception if people are (wrongly) led to believe this is possible, while RTD still can't manage to get a 20th century diesel belcher built with over a billion dollars of public money.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I wonder though how much throughput they would be able to achieve . In one video I counted a vehicle every 2+ seconds so if they averaged 2 riders per vehicle that would be a rider per second. That would be 3600 per hour per guide way as a theoretical maximum at that particular speed and spacing which appeared to be about 30-40 MPH and about 50 ft separation. I suppose how fast the switches are would be a limiting factor in reducing separation but it may be possible to dynamically adjust spacing to isolate a vehicle being switched off the trunk and provide enough time for the switch to cycle.

Even if it goes nowhere it's still cool and who can complain if, at least at this point, it's only private equity with skin to lose.

We already have a personal transportation mode with roughly the travel characteristics you describe. Perhaps you've heard of it. We call it the automobile.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We should be dismissive of it. Monorails, maglevs, and PRT have all been around a long time, and none has caught on because none are practical. We have no reason to think combining them would make them practical, nor any reason to believe this person can actually fund his idea.

I don't object to someone investing their own money in this, but file it in the believe it when you see it category. Sort of like the hyperloop (but less nefarious, since unlike Elon Musk, this person presumably isn't trying to sabotage a legitimate rail project).

I agree with the I'll believe it when I see it attitude but I also believe it is closed minded to assume a certain type of transportation will always remain impractical because it has proven so with the technology of the past.

History shows that what is impossible or impractical often becomes commonplace as technologies evolve (personal motor cars for more than the extravigantly wealthy, commercial air travel, etc.) . There are plenty of examples where inventors were asked "why are you wasting your time on that, it's been tried before and never worked" only to be the one that makes it work.

Sure it's a long shot but this particular combination of technologies could turn out to hit a sweet spot that actually provides a practical solution to a particular subset of our transportation needs. So let NASA dream, let investors chase those dreams for a bit, don't hold our breath or make any plans but at least be open to the possibility that value equations can change and that it takes exploring many dead ends to discover new ways forward.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I agree with the I'll believe it when I see it attitude but I also believe it is closed minded to assume a certain type of transportation will always remain impractical because it has proven so with the technology of the past.

History shows that what is impossible or impractical often becomes commonplace as technologies evolve (personal motor cars for more than the extravigantly wealthy, commercial air travel, etc.) . There are plenty of examples where inventors were asked "why are you wasting your time on that, it's been tried before and never worked" only to be the one that makes it work.

Sure it's a long shot but this particular combination of technologies could turn out to hit a sweet spot that actually provides a practical solution to a particular subset of our transportation needs. So let NASA dream, let investors chase those dreams for a bit, don't hold our breath or make any plans but at least be open to the possibility that value equations can change and that it takes exploring many dead ends to discover new ways forward.

If private parties wish to invest into new technologies and systems trying to make it work, I'm okay with it. But I don't think government at any level should be investing in the operation and practicability of new technologies. Although I'm not against government investing into basic science and research, I think investing and taking it out of university laboratories is a step too far and best left to private enterprise.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We already have a personal transportation mode with roughly the travel characteristics you describe. Perhaps you've heard of it. We call it the automobile.

Except that the automobile has to be parked at each end, sits idle taking up space between trips and cannot be beckoned to your current location to pick you up if you don't happen to be where you last parked it. I see the system described by Ames (not the Longmont commuter application being touted here) as more of an automated car2go equivilent, operating in it's own right of way above traffic on a dedicated system that provides propulsion through an external energy source requiring no on-board fuel and no localized emissions.

Pie in the sky Jetsons flying car, futurist vaporware; Sure, at the moment.

Edit: Even if this becomes a reality just as a novelty it will still make a good technology demonstrator and investors would likely make back their 10Mil/Mile on a short loop just by selling rides for amusement purposes. open up the cabins a bit and this could be an ultra-expensive multiple rider zip-line of the future. I nominate Idaho Springs to get it first.

Edit Edit: I'm not making any arguments for the aesthetics of such a system. That's another whole discussion but I'm sure many would balk at a large quantity of vehicles whizzing around 50' overhead and all the poles and view-plane issues.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I see the system described by Ames as more of an automated car2go equivilent, operating in it's own right of way above traffic on a dedicated system... Except that the automobile has to be parked at each end, sits idle taking up space between trips and cannot be beckoned to your current location to pick you up if you don't happen to be where you last parked it.

Congratulations on figuring out why this is an impractical idea. We already have car2go, using our existing infrastructure. Building duplicate elevated infrastructure to do the same thing is a gigantic waste of money. And we all know car2go will switch to driverless cars in a few years anyway, thus eliminating your need to find parking and making it possible to beckon to your current location (which can be anywhere with a street, not just the handful of places with an elevated maglev). Game set match for the needlessly duplicate and more expensive elevated version.

We do not need to build an entire duplicate elevated infrastructure to get the benefit of this. We don't. Any proposal that suggests doing so is poorly conceived.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Congratulations on figuring out why this is an impractical idea. We already have car2go, using our existing infrastructure. Building duplicate elevated infrastructure to do the same thing is a gigantic waste of money. And we all know car2go will switch to driverless cars in a few years anyway, thus eliminating your need to find parking and making it possible to beckon to your current location (which can be anywhere with a street, not just the handful of places with an elevated maglev). Game set match for the needlessly duplicate and more expensive elevated version.

We do not need to build an entire duplicate elevated infrastructure to get the benefit of this. We don't. Any proposal that suggests doing so is poorly conceived.

I agree somewhat but the argument could be made that using most of our ground level right of way for automobile type transit has forced other modes to the sidelines, literally, and as the population densities increase we will need more cross section for each mode which currently doesn't exist without going up or going down. By grade separating the system you also remove gridlock and other interaction issues. Going underground gets very expensive. much more than 10 mil/mile I would guess. The promise of the elevated system, maybe not yet delivered efficiently, is to expand the capacity by going vertically. I'm sure driver-less cars will eventually solve the parking issues although knowing American sensibilities we'll probobly all send our personal cars home until we need them, virtually doubling our infrastructure needs.

Edit: An important factor in determining feasibility would also be the maintenance costs for the system. While not likely it is possible that a simple, well designed and standardized guide-way system using passive levitation could have a lower maintenance and operating cost than our current road/auto systems, thereby offsetting initial capital investment.

[bcp]

i use car2go, it is awesome. anybody want to buy a used A6?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bcp

i use car2go, it is awesome. anybody want to buy a used A6?

Sure. What year?

10,000 woot!

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

We do not need to build an entire duplicate elevated infrastructure to get the benefit of this. We don't. Any proposal that suggests doing so is poorly conceived.

We will need to maintain and replace the current infrastructure as it ages or it's capacity becomes insufficient, and any planning that does not consider other options than just rebuilding the same system in perpetuity is poorly conceived.

Let me reword your statement slightly:

I bet there were a few claims that "We do not need to build an entire duplicate subterranean infrastructure to get the benefit of this. We don't. Any proposal that suggests doing so is poorly conceived" before the first subway was constructed. After all they already had existing trollies and tracks at ground level.

P.S. I personally find monorail systems generally ugly and intrusive, but that's not the point.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Interzen

I agree somewhat but the argument could be made that using most of our ground level right of way for automobile type transit has forced other modes to the sidelines, literally, and as the population densities increase we will need more cross section for each mode which currently doesn't exist without going up or going down. By grade separating the system you also remove gridlock and other interaction issues. Going underground gets very expensive. much more than 10 mil/mile I would guess. The promise of the elevated system, maybe not yet delivered efficiently, is to expand the capacity by going vertically. I'm sure driver-less cars will eventually solve the parking issues although knowing American sensibilities we'll probably all send our personal cars home until we need them, virtually doubling our infrastructure needs.

Edit: An important factor in determining feasibility would also be the maintenance costs for the system. While not likely it is possible that a simple, well designed and standardized guide-way system using passive levitation could have a lower maintenance and operating cost than our current road/auto systems, thereby offsetting initial capital investment.

So your entire argument for this is that we need grade separation? And because these people claim to be able to grade separate a transportation mode for one-tenth of what anybody else has been able to do, that makes it the answer.

OR... you could realize that their estimates are just hogwash. There is no elevated structure that you can build for $10 million/mile, let alone one with advanced technology. Period. Structures are structures - unless he's revolutionized materials science at the same time as he'd supposedly revolutionized propulsion technology, the numbers are just plain unbelievable. Whatever he's doing, it's not going to be concrete or steel, not at those prices.

It's a bar napkin proposal, and one that most of us on the forum could actually do a better job at.

EDIT: If I could get the Daily Camera to run a piece saying I could singlehandedly bring about Mideast peace, would you believe that too? Or is your entire leap of faith based on: technology changes, so we should give this a chance?

Also, it goes without saying... if this IS a viable technology... a sparsely populated corridor in Colorado is NOT the first place we'd see it on planet Earth. Just the location of the proposal should tell you all you need to know about its legitimacy.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And thank you for confirming exactly why reporting this as if it's a legitimate option is damaging to real transportation. Because fools are easily suckered.

Don't you think that if a private PRT system was financially viable, someone, somewhere, would've built one by now? These ideas have been popping up for four decades now. Still nobody's managed to take it beyond the bar napkin.

And far be it for me to defend RTD's financial management. But it sure doesn't help public perception if people are (wrongly) led to believe this is possible, while RTD still can't manage to get a 20th century diesel belcher built with over a billion dollars of public money.

Don't you think that if a private flying automobile were possible, someone would have built one by now?

Signed everyone before The Wright Brothers..

Seriously, you and Cirrus sound like old men complaining about people using those zippidity dooda computer contraptions. On the one hand, you readily accept the inevitability of driverless cars, but somehow this elevated monorail is sci-fi fantasy?

Look, I realize new concepts, new mediums, and new modes of transportation are risky and aren't likely to pan out. But I am surprised by your open hostility to something you know very little about. How about listening to the proposal before ripping it apart?

And heaven forbid that the technology proves so feasible that it one day replaces expensive diesel technology and the ROW issues of today. Things change and technology evolves - usually in ways that no one predicts. Oh.. How I weep for the horse and buggy..!

But maybe I'm part of the fooled masses by my willingness to have an open mind.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So your entire argument for this is that we need grade separation?

If you read closely I have not argued for this, and I have stated that the Longmont route is not what I consider an appropriate use for such technology. The only thing I have argued against is carrying forward preconceived notions about which technologies may or may not be practical in the future and superimposing those beliefs on every announcement of a new proposed project or evolution in a particular technology.

Also I said eventually on the driverless car thing. I doubt I'll ever ride in one in my lifetime but It's slightly more likely that I could have a chance to ride a demonstrator of this hybrid mono-mag system.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Meanwhile, in Boulder:



http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-c...mand#idc-cover

I hate it when this kind of stuff gets reported to the press as if it's a legitimate idea...

Yeah, this is dumb. Can we please start talking about something relevant.

[Interzen]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So your entire argument for this is that we need grade separation? And because these people claim to be able to grade separate a transportation mode for one-tenth of what anybody else has been able to do, that makes it the answer.

OR... you could realize that their estimates are just hogwash. There is no elevated structure that you can build for $10 million/mile, let alone one with advanced technology. Period. Structures are structures - unless he's revolutionized materials science at the same time as he'd supposedly revolutionized propulsion technology, the numbers are just plain unbelievable. Whatever he's doing, it's not going to be concrete or steel, not at those prices.

The 10Mil/mile figure is directly from Ames. Simple steel roller coaster construction can come in at under 10 million per mile and has to deal with higher G forces. You need to stop criticizing out your ass when nobody was saying anything more than "wow that's neat I wonder if it will go anywhere."

Edit: P.S. it's not a "he", it's the Ames Research Center, you know those rocket scientists at NASA.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

you and Cirrus sound like old men complaining about people using those zippidity dooda computer contraptions. On the one hand, you readily accept the inevitability of driverless cars, but somehow this elevated monorail is sci-fi fantasy?

It's pretty funny that you're calling us incapable of thinking in new ideas while simultaneously pointing out a new idea that we accept as inevitable. We accept the inevitability of driverless cars, carsharing, bikesharing, and other new ideas because they are practical ideas grounded in good assumptions that have been proven to work. We do not accept the inevitability of monorail PRT proposals because monorail PRT proposals have been in the news continuously since before we were born, have been proven time after time to be based on incorrect assumptions, and have been proven not to work. And this one is making all the same claims that every other failed one always has.

In fact, this has nothing to do with new ideas. That's actually the whole point. This is an old idea. It's an old idea that we already know doesn't work.

If it upsets you to hear that, /shrug/

[Interzen]

I want to add one more example before I let this drop. I can't tell you how many times I heard technology analysts say internet over wireless networks will never take off 15+ years ago. The argument was that it's been tried already and is impractically slow and our data needs will grow faster than the bandwidth capacity can.

How many of you used a wireless data connection today, say from your phone? Was it convenient and relatively fast?

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

[Cirrus]

One more thing:

Originally Posted by Interzen

The 10Mil/mile figure is directly from Ames. Simple steel roller coaster construction can come in at under 10 million per mile and has to deal with higher G forces. Edit: P.S. it's not a "he", it's the Ames Research Center, you know those rocket scientists at NASA.

Rocket scientists at NASA don't know anything about urban transportation.

Did you know that in the 1980s, Boeing tried to get into the transit game? They figured "Hey, we're great at building airplanes, and trains are way simpler than planes, so let's start competing with Bombardier and Siemens for the rail market." Great idea. Except they sucked at it. The trains they produced for San Francisco and Boston broke down constantly and had to be replaced in 1/4 the time comparable trains from any experienced manufacturer would have.

Being smart in one field does not automatically guarantee success in any other field. Michael Jordan's baseball career is another example.