ULTra Heathrow schedule: Spring 2010
Steve Raney
commercial PRT system at Heathrow. BAA and ATS are working hard to
ensure this innovative and environmentally friendly system performs to
an excellent standard and improves our passengers' experience of
travelling through Heathrow. Testing of the PRT System is continuing
and, with all installation and communications challenges now resolved,
we anticipate commencing passenger services in late Spring 2010."
This is what I'd call a joint BAA/ATS approved statement.
http://www.ultraprt.com/cms/index.php?page=latest-schedule
I want to give apologies in advance because I typically can't answer
questions very easily on this sort of thing because answers have to go
through a process.
- Steve
Mr_Grant
the delay?
DG
Dennis Manning
You have to know this is disappointing news as we have been told for many
months that it would open in the Fall. I'm sure the testing is very
important and doing it right is more important than meeting an arbitrary
deadline. Keep on truckin, post us when you can.
Dennis
Kirston Henderson
> Steve:
>
> You have to know this is disappointing news as we have been told for many
> months that it would open in the Fall. I'm sure the testing is very
> important and doing it right is more important than meeting an arbitrary
> deadline. Keep on truckin, post us when you can.
Everyone in this group needs to realize that the time to fully test and
make the almost certain corrections, improvements, etc. to such items as
sensor hardware, communications, and system control software is a very slow
and deliberate process for any fully automated system such as the ULTra
system being tested at Heathrow. Those of us who have been involved in this
process understand the scope and nature of the problems that can be
encountered and must be corrected before any automated system can be placed
in public service. There are almost certain to be problems to be solved
between limited but usually impressive demonstrations on a small test
guideway loop and a fully qualified system for public use. That is
precisely the reason that our company has consistently said that we can not
commit to fielding a fully automated version of our own systems in less than
48-months. It is tough enough to just solve all of the hardware and
software problems to field a manually-controlled, coupled train version of
our systems.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jack Slade
If there are problems, I doubt if Steve is in a position to be able to tell us what they are, so that we can plan to avoid them. Heathrow's PR people are obviously clearing all press releases.Maybe later on?....
|
Mike C
Seriously, I'd much rather they open later, than try to rush it into
service and risk having problems that the detractors will use. Moron
Setty has already been speculating that there was a delay, and that
somehow his idiot opinions of a few weeks ago caused more "due
diligence". He also refers to someone named "Lowenson" - nice "due
diligence" there Mr. Setty. See publictransit.us for Setty's latest
hack job... I personally can't wait for PRT to take hold so Setty's
name can be made synonymous with anti-technology luddism. ;-)
But in any case, it's nice to see an official announcement from ATS.
Mike C.
Mr_Grant
resoures.
But since 3 of its last 5 articles (going back to June) are about PRT,
isn't it mostly an anti-PRT website?
Does this question make me one of the "hacks"?
eph
Written by Michael D. Setty
Friday, 12 June 2009
Dr. Schnedier has posted another odd PRT essay (pdf download): Brick
Wall Stops and PRT
I suspect my previous posts, which have included discussion of the
"brick wall" stopping criteria that limits the minimum safe headways
of PRT systems to around 3-5 seconds--allowing for margins of error--
have caused PRT advocates to scramble, if this linked paper is
anyindication. Based on the "discussion" in this rather amateurish
paper, it is clear the author fails to understand why "tailgating"
while driving is a bad idea, nor did he apparently learn anything from
the Space Shuttle O-Ring problems leading to the Challenger disaster.
Last Updated ( Friday, 12 June 2009 ) "
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=207&Itemid=1
It would be close to libel it it weren't so buffoonishly wrong. Maybe
he's the Colbert of the transit world?
F.
Mike C
stooges" of anti-PRT activism, with Ken Avidor and Vukan Vuchic.
See, I did that purposely because apparently name calling gets his
attention. I guess the guy who invented the "gadgetbahner" smear can
dish it out but can't take it. :-)
Now that I know you're reading this Michael Setty, would you care to
explain why US light rail *averages* 7500 BTU per passenger mile, more
than *double* the average for a private automobile? Maybe it's because
transit professionals like yourself have been making millions ramming
light rail down the throats of small cities, where the demand can't
support the costs? And if you think that's an anti-rail statement,
you're wrong, because I'm a big fan of well-conceived rail like NYC
and London. I only object to people like Michael D. Setty, who twist
facts and numbers to con the public into building the wrong transit
system, then suffocate for decades under the weight of costs.
Care to respond, M. Setty? Please explain why the average light rail
energy usage is more than seven times higher than the system you mock.
We all know you're reading this.
Mike C
On Sep 3, 5:07 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "PRT & Brickbats PDF Print E-mail
> Written by Michael D. Setty
> Friday, 12 June 2009
>
> Dr. Schnedier has posted another odd PRT essay (pdf download): Brick
> Wall Stops and PRT
>
> I suspect my previous posts, which have included discussion of the
> "brick wall" stopping criteria that limits the minimum safe headways
> of PRT systems to around 3-5 seconds--allowing for margins of error--
> have caused PRT advocates to scramble, if this linked paper is
> anyindication. Based on the "discussion" in this rather amateurish
> paper, it is clear the author fails to understand why "tailgating"
> while driving is a bad idea, nor did he apparently learn anything from
> the Space Shuttle O-Ring problems leading to the Challenger disaster.
Mr_Grant
"Cloudy forecast for light rail: Rain has put downtown extension
project behind schedule" http://bit.ly/Euisc
"San Francisco Municipal Railway's Third Street light-rail project is
more than a year behind schedule and $120 million over budget"
http://bit.ly/bZDan
Jack Slade
Read the material ( 1 and 3 yrs old) and see no reference to Setty in them> Am I missing something?
The price for Virginia system seems low, should be about 50M per mile more. Any data on what the overrun was, eventually?
|
Dennis Manning
one conversation with him I'd like to ask him to explain why he is so
opposed to PRT development given it's enormous promise just in lower costs
for public transit.
Does he believe that the budding technology can't improve over time? Does he
believe that the new technology should be blocked from testing in the public
arena?
From what I've seen so far it's mostly explained by their simple emotional
love for trolleys, trains, and rail. I've got some really fond memories of
trips on trolleys, trains, and various rail systems. In particular was the
wonderful summer in 1960 of my travel all over Europe on a Eurail Pass, but
is that what this is all about? preserving a fond dream?
Doesn't Setty have any comprehension that nostalgia for his beloved trolleys
provides no solution for the current litany of problems? that his proposals
have been on the table for a century and continually lost ground? Does he
not see the fundamental the insurmountable problem with mass transit
solutions.
Well we will see if Setty shows himself on this list. I doubt it. He can
only carry on an emotional fear of the future campaign. He simply can't
carry on a rational conversation about the benefits of PRT versus his 100
year old trolleys.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:26 PM
Subject: [t-i] Michael Setty, inventor of the "gadgetbahn" smear, doesn't
like name calling! :-)
Mike C
We don't have to wait for Setty to respond. His motivation is a simple
one to guess: MONEY. Setty is an aging transit professional who knows
one thing: scheduled transit. Look at his resume, and you'll find that
he's made an entire career out of creating routes and optimizing
schedules. And now along comes a system with no schedules! PRT makes
him obsolete, and that terrifies him because he's too lazy to learn
something new at this point in his career. So he smears it in a
desperate attempt to extend his usefulness another 10-15 years.
Now, this is all just my own opinion, but if you want some supporting
evidence, look at the *other* current item on publictransit.net:
"Michael D. Setty, Robert Feinbaum, Phd, Gerald R. Cauthen, P.E., have
created a new transportation planning collaborative emphasizing the
creative use of proven, well understood technology to solve urban,
suburban and rural transportation problems."
He then links to his new blog, http://www.transportationinnovators.com
(oh the irony! :-)). Follow the link and you will find that Setty's
current focus is "Napa Valley Sustainable Transit". So Setty just
*happens* to be bashing PRT at a time when he is trying to build a new
consulting business in the state where PRT is drawing the most
interest! What a coincidence! It bears mentioning that his last major
anti-PRT thrust was 4 years ago, when he was trying to make his
previous consulting business work (Carquinez Associates).
The evidence is crystal clear, IMO.
But of course, our opinions are all we have, because SETTY REFUSES TO
ENGAGE US HERE. So, Mr. Setty, we know you read this, why don't you
tell us why you oppose PRT so strongly? While you're at it, you can
explain why light rail uses so much energy in this country. You might
also explain why publictransit.net doesn't have banner headlines
announcing the recent light rail schedule slips that Mr. Grant
recently posted here. And for your finale, you can explain to us why
sub-3-second headways are SO dangerous even though Cabintaxi was
approved at less than 3-seconds, 30 years ago.
I look forward to hearing from you, Mr. Setty - here on the group,
where we can debate in an open forum.
Mike C
Mr_Grant
Jack Slade
This is news to me, Mike. I thought he was just some kind of a grumpy recluse, who doesn't travel.
I wonder if will tell us about the last time he actually used his favoured method of travel?
|
|
Roy Reynolds
If this form translates at all (a .pdf is also attached), here's a table of costs for light rail systems that we've collected over the summer. The basic per mile average cost is $140 million for at-grade technology, or about five times the current vendor consensus of $23-30M/mile for single-track, unidirectional elevated PRT. Certainly, elevated LRT costs would be astronomical as the City of Honolulu is finding now.
These figures do not take into account the potential of private investment in PRT (e.g. stations funded by hotels, big box retailers, apartment/condo complexes) or private vehicles -- all financing strategies that lessen the infrastructure costs normally be borne solely by taxation. If anyone would care to add to this, we'd welcome the numbers and would post them on our website. I'm especially interested in the new system in Phoenix, and would also love to add a column on the public subsidies that LRT requires.
|
US$ Millions |
Miles |
$M/Mile |
|
|
MUNI (SF) Third Street Extension |
1,297.95 |
1.7 |
$763.5 |
|
Sound Transit (Seattle) Central Link projects |
4,384.58 |
17.0 |
$257.9 |
|
Portland-Milwaukie LRT (Oregon) |
1,471.76 |
7.3 |
$201.6 |
|
Hudson-Bergen MOS-2 (New Jersey) |
1,215.40 |
6.1 |
$199.2 |
|
North Shore LRT Connector (Pittsburgh) |
235.70 |
1.2 |
$196.4 |
|
Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension (Los Angeles) |
898.81 |
5.9 |
$152.3 |
|
North Corridor LRT (Houston) |
677.00 |
5.3 |
$128.2 |
|
Southeast Corridor LRT (Houston) |
680.60 |
6.2 |
$109.8 |
|
Central Corridor LRT (St. Paul/Minneapolis) |
914.89 |
9.7 |
$94.3 |
|
Gold Line (Denver) |
859.51 |
10.8 |
$79.6 |
|
Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail |
1,412.12 |
19.6 |
$72.0 |
|
Northeast Corridor Light Rail Project (Charlotte) |
748.96 |
10.7 |
$70.0 |
|
South Corridor I-205/Portland Mall LRT (Oregon) |
575.70 |
8.3 |
$69.4 |
|
Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS (Dallas) |
1,406.22 |
21.0 |
$67.0 |
|
South Corridor Phase 2 (Sacramento) |
270.00 |
4.3 |
$62.8 |
|
West Corridor LRT (Denver) |
709.83 |
12.1 |
$58.7 |
|
Mid-Jordan LRT (Salt Lake City) |
535.37 |
10.6 |
$50.5 |
|
Southeast Corridor LRT (Denver) |
879.27 |
19.1 |
$46.0 |
|
East Corridor (Denver) |
788.69 |
22.7 |
$34.7 |
|
Norfolk LRT (Virginia) |
232.10 |
7.4 |
$31.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CenterLine (Orange County, CA ~2005) |
1,167.00 |
9.3 |
$125.5 |
|
Honolulu, HI Elevated LRT |
5,300.00 |
20.0 |
$265.0 |
|
Average Cost/Mile |
$142.5 |
||
|
Avg Cost less Honolulu, OC |
$137.3 |
||
|
Light rail (LRT) projects identified in the U.S. DOT/Federal Transit Administration "Annual Report on |
|||
|
Funding Recommendations" for Fiscal Year 2010, sorted in declining order of cost per mile |
|||
|
Orange County and Honolulu estimates per PRT Strategies research |
|||
|
Source: T. A. Rubin, 07.09.09 |
==========================
Roy Reynolds
Managing Director
PRT Strategies
Office: 714.531.7076
Skype: rallenr
|
Jerry Roane
Was TriTrack price averaged into the $23-30 million per mile for single track? According to the TxDot funded study by the Texas Transportation Institute our guideway is quoted at $1 million per mile even though I told Jim Longbottom it was $170,000 per mile for our guideway in the interview. In that study they published the price per mile on page 33 (TTI:0-5827 kept in the UT Austin library) of systems A through N the mean (average) is $9.5407 million per mile. Where are the $23-30 million per mile numbers published? Perhaps that needs to be revised. If the world thinks guideway is too expensive they may reject the idea off hand if their impression is off by a factor of 155.
I like your list of the competing (not really competitive) fixed guideway systems. I did hear the term "fixed guideway" used several times in my last TxDot meeting. That is a huge forward step in that world.
I wish I was able to propose to the Hawaii decision makers. Our vehicle is much more Jetsons and tourist friendly than most with our panoramic view. We could certainly beat their price even throwing in free cars and free rides for less money than direct construction cost. The indirect cost of building the antique system is putting lots of small business out of business during the messy construction phase. Those lost businesses are not usually counted in the cost of construction but to the business owner and his landlord they are very real.
I do not know how you would get the lost business cost of a light/commuter/trolley rail project but if you could get those numbers it would further skew your results. I did read some articles about Houston rail putting businesses out of business.
Jerry Roane
From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Slade
Kirston Henderson
Roy
Was TriTrack price averaged into the $23-30 million per mile for single track? According to the TxDot funded study by the Texas Transportation Institute our guideway is quoted at $1 million per mile even though I told Jim Longbottom it was $170,000 per mile for our guideway in the interview. In that study they published the price per mile on page 33 (TTI:0-5827 kept in the UT Austin library) of systems A through N the mean (average) is $9.5407 million per mile. Where are the $23-30 million per mile numbers published? Perhaps that needs to be revised. If the world thinks guideway is too expensive they may reject the idea off hand if their impression is off by a factor of 155.
I like your list of the competing (not really competitive) fixed guideway systems. I did hear the term "fixed guideway" used several times in my last TxDot meeting. That is a huge forward step in that world.
I think that a lot of confusion exists in cost. Some cost are quoted only on terms of the cost per mile of one-way guideway and do not include a host of other cost such as site engineering, utility relocations, stations, vehicles needed, cost for two-way guideway, electrical power substations, etc. When you include all of the system cost, the $10 to $12M per mile can be realistic for urban areas, while the cost is much lower for open country systems. In providing any initial estimate, it is very important to include all of the probable total system costs.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Schneider
>Roy
>
>Was TriTrack price averaged into the $23-30 million per mile for
>single track? According to the TxDot funded study by the Texas
>Transportation Institute our guideway is quoted at $1 million per
>mile even though I told Jim Longbottom it was $170,000 per mile for
>our guideway in the interview. In that study they published the
>price per mile on page 33 (TTI:0-5827 kept in the UT Austin library)
>of systems A through N the mean (average) is $9.5407 million per
>mile. Where are the $23-30 million per mile numbers
>published? Perhaps that needs to be revised. If the world thinks
>guideway is too expensive they may reject the idea off hand if their
>impression is off by a factor of 155.
The CEETI report is available on-line at:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/big/CEETIreport.pdf
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Jerry Roane
I agree with your request that we have some sort of cost outline so we can compare fairly and that the cost is cost, not cost plus profit. I suggest a profit-free cost to reduce the answer variability. This is my suggestion not the rules. I also suggest that we not include the one-time engineering cost of the very first full system in cost comparisons. This too would confuse the result to the average guy trying to figure out if he would be served by the new paradigm in transportation rather that just the fat cat's developments. Here is my suggestion:
-That we do one mile of single direction guideway
-That it includes no right of way component if it physically fits existing city owned utility easements If it cannot be built in the power line easement then an eminent domain cost for the additional land area required.
- Again no profit component to keep the variability low in comparisons
- Includes survey work but no environmental bullshit study looking for burial grounds of the ancient
- Does include foundation work
- Does include all material costs
- Does include any guideway built in motors or maglev stationary coils
- Does include construction labor and supervisory administration for that direct labor
- Does include the connection to the power grid for the rated load
- Excludes the business as usual of redoing all underground utilities just before the new thing goes in using the new project budget to upgrade the old infrastructure under the path.
- Although alternate uses for the guideway can pay for the entire public access like using freight or water delivery to pay for the guideway we exclude those profitable ventures sharing this guideway because it is too complex to easily grasp on the first blush
- Although battery spare capacity will be used to level the power company power level this too would offset the cost of a built system but again that it even more complicated for the first time observer but needs a mention
- Exclude the political decision process as that is out of control and very expensive. It is not our fault either.
- To sum up this is the incremental cost of building the next incremental mile past the first full city implementation.
A question for all though is how many cars are included in the cost of a mile of guideway? I am assuming that a mile of guideway cost is for a mile of guideway. If we pack the guideway with cars for each mile of guideway then at a 137.28 feet following distance it would take 141 cars per mile max or $1,416,309 to absolutely fill that one guideway with cars. No light rail system includes trains as close as they can pack train equipment and passenger cars or dining cars so it seems unfair to include rolling stock maxed out in our numbers. In our plan we intend to build more guideway miles than necessary intentionally reducing the car density with respect to time. In a full implementation we would not max out this overcapacity because at any instant in time you only have so many car owners and taxi drivers driving so some factor would have to be devised to account for the $1,416,309 worth of cars of a fully maxed out 27,692 passenger max flow rate per this mile of single guideway.
With any scaler it needs units. I think these units on our cost of guideway are correct. Our minimalist approach to guideway provides a small footprint on the world resources on purpose. This intentionally gives us a low cost and this low cost of a guideway mile does come at a cost. The decision makers have a vision of a train dining car from a black and white Hollywood movie where they meet a gorgeous actress on their way back to their real wife. Snapping back to reality you are not going to meet that actress on the ride home and you don't need tea and biscuits on a 5 minute ride home. Our interior is wider than other transit interiors but not spacious. Although sometimes you need to move a load of concrete to your back yard to build a sidewalk around your pool you won't be able to do it all in one trip with our guideway like you can with a 3/4 ton rated pickup truck. In this case cost is dollar cost not other external costs.
Do you think this is fair if we all use this set of qualifiers? If you do not like these qualifiers please suggest another and possibly we could get a consensus of this group on the units to our scalers. In an open competition for providing mobility the lowest cost vendor has to be chosen so the agencies that let contracts are very careful to never ask for mobility service. They only ask for bids on the last portion of incremental construction. This micromanagement technique keeps lower cost solutions from upsetting the apple cart. Imagine if CapMetro had to compete as a total mobility solution????? Cost is very important and getting a delineated definition would help us all.
Jerry Roane
Roy Reynolds
The $23-30M/mile numbers are anecdotal -- that is, they're in a range per the conversations I've had with ULTra, Vectus, SkyWeb and others. Would I bid a system on them? Of course not, they're obviously too imprecise (as are the LRT numbers, and for that matter, anything I've ever seen for BRT). Put another way, it's the best information anyone has right now as far as what's been divulged.
The issue in these comparisons comes to the old problem of comparing apples to oranges. PRT and LRT are very different technologies, and the big problem in using these financial comparisons is really the imprecision of potential vehicle quantities in use, their carrying capacity (relative to PPHPD analysis) and their costs. Still, one must deal with the entrenched nature of LRT (and HRT) in the "transportation establishment", these numbers are all we have right now. Fwiw, I've placed our table on our links page.
Roy
From:
transport-...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirston
Henderson
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:35 PM
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [t-i] Re: Michael Setty, inventor of the "gadgetbahn"
smear, doesn't like name calling! :-)
on 9/4/09 11:50 PM, Jerry Roane at jerry...@gmail.com wrote:
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.78/2347 - Release Date: 09/05/09 05:51:00
Kirston Henderson
> The $23-30M/mile numbers are anecdotal -- that is, they're in a range per
> the conversations I've had with ULTra, Vectus, SkyWeb and others. Would I
> bid a system on them? Of course not, they're obviously too imprecise (as
> are the LRT numbers, and for that matter, anything I've ever seen for BRT).
> Put another way, it's the best information anyone has right now as far as
> what's been divulged.
Perhaps, I can shed a little more light on the system cost subject in
terms of cost information that has been disclosed. Although the information
described below is for our larger MegaRail systems, it is not more than
about 10% higher than for installed system numbers for our smaller
MicroRail system.
The downloadable pdf file at the following url has total installed
system costs to the customer:
http://www.megarail.com/pdf/current/I-70MTNCRB-3H.pdf
Page 31B provides total estimated installed system costs per lane-mile
and these numbers are based upon what we believe to be realistic,
upper-limit cost and are based upon firm bids from our major industry team
members. By the way, these costs are for a 125-mph MegaRail® system
installed along I-70 through the Colorado Rockies.
The downloadable pdf file at:
http://www.megarail.com/pdf/current/RTC-CRB6f.pdf
shows total installed system costs for a MegaRail® commuter rail system in
the Dallas/Fort Worth area. See page 21.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jack Slade
Jerry, one correction on your math: 5280 ft divided by 137 ft spacing comes out to 38 cars.....
Estimates I have provided follows your basic rules....the actual cost to create the system and install it, not what price I would sell it for. The reasonong for this is that I think it is better to enter an agreement to build, maintain, and operate the system for a specified period.
I can see no other way to ensure proper maintanance and operation. It is not the same situation as if qualified maintenance people were alteady employed by the Cites, and improper O & M may eventually cause a disaster that will have the City looking around for somebody to blame.
That would be you, or me, and I think you know what their maintanance records are like....wait till it breaks. and then ignore it.
|
|
Jerry Roane
I don't know what happened there! Good catch. Must have fat fingered the calculator. I agree with your idea and you make an excellent point about who manages the repair and refurbishment of the system. We have proposed a toll road to TxDot before that was a 40 year time period. It was to be operated by our company but the proposal was returned unopened. A lot of changes have happened since then and it is about time to propose it again to the toll authority. If we can get a toll road installed it can grow with the revenue generated with more toll roads. Austin will probably fail air quality and the date is coming up. I think it will take the failure of our air quality to get these guys to do anything here. Sad.
Jerry Roane
Kirston Henderson
Estimates I have provided follows your basic rules....the actual cost to create the system and install it, not what price I would sell it for. The reasonong for this is that I think it is better to enter an agreement to build, maintain, and operate the system for a specified period.
I can see no other way to ensure proper maintanance and operation. It is not the same situation as if qualified maintenance people were alteady employed by the Cites, and improper O & M may eventually cause a disaster that will have the City looking around for somebody to blame.
That would be you, or me, and I think you know what their maintanance records are like....wait till it breaks. and then ignore it.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jack Slade
That's good, Kirston. If you are not the owner, I would add one more precaution....no override button that would permit the control room to ignore the computer.
|
Roy Reynolds
In my response below, I neglected to mention the elephant in the room as I suspect most in this group understand it's there -- but I'll bring it up anyway. Right-of-Way is the major challenge to any at-grade LRT alignment. We're in the densest part of Orange County, and any endeavor here involving, e.g., freeway widening has the enormity and risks of the Normandy landing. An LRT alignment had been marketed by the transit agency just a few years ago, but went down hard when it was learned it would take out a few hundred homes and businesses.
Aside from the political risk and nasty press, in general terms, the sheer expense of RoW acquisition (particularly where government land isn't involved) undermines most LRT opportunities. As LA Metro has learned, where streets are shared, accidents and deaths result -- the successful Long Beach <> Los Angeles Blue Line has been involved in 90+ fatalities since 1990. PRT can make a much easier argument for RoW, especially where it can share it on existing arterials, river and flood channels as we have here and alongside existing rail alignments (why not?).
Roy
Roy Reynolds
latimes.com/business/la-fi-cover6-2009sep06,0,6494829.story
TECHNOLOGY
A peek into the future
Wireless electricity, touchable holograms, grown-up slot cars, elevators to space and more: Who knows whether they'll pan out, but they're in the works.
By David Colker
September 6, 2009
Of
all the predictions made during the future-happy 1950s -- when it was declared
we'd soon have flying cars, robot butlers, rocket-delivered mail and food made
from wood pulp -- there was one forward-looking statement that was completely validated.
It was delivered by Criswell, a self-described soothsayer and TV personality,
who said, "We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and
I are going to spend the rest of our lives."
Otherwise, predicting the future, certainly in the realm of technology, is a
risky endeavor.
Still, billions of dollars are spent every year in trying to do just that:
predict which products will spark new businesses or even whole new industries.
Here's a look at proposed technological wonders that are under development in
the fields of energy, transportation, television and medicine. Some are far
enough along to be aimed at the near term, others are more in the pipe-dream
category, but all are serious enough to be funded by corporate, government or academic
dollars.
Keep in mind, however, that the most important new technologies for the coming
decades might not even have been thought of yet. After all, 1950s futurists
didn't foresee the biggest game changer of our era -- the Internet. It's where
so many of us are spending much of our lives.
Energy
* Smart meters: Global warming and volatile energy prices have spurred
development of digital meters that provide real-time reports of energy usage.
They're already in use in some parts of the country.
This year, Southern California Edison Co. will begin installing 5.3 million of
them for all its residential and small-business customers. The cost: $1.63
billion, to be offset by a 1.5% rate increase until implementation is complete
in 2012.
Once they're in place, consumers will be able to monitor their electricity use
via the Internet.
Next up: remote-controlled thermostats and appliances. That can happen as soon
as manufacturers agree to a single standard for the control chips, according to
Paul Moreno of Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which is installing 9.8 million
smart meters in Northern California.
* Wireless electricity: Electricity that travels through the air to power
lights, computers and other devices sounds like one of those 1950s-style
fantasies. But WiTricity Corp., a company spun off from research at MIT, says
it's time to cut the cord. Wireless electricity products using its technology
will be available by 2011.
Funded by $5 million from Stata Venture Partners and Argonaut Private Equity,
the company has developed a system based on a technology already used in
transformers (such as the block-shaped thing on your cellphone charger).
In transformers, power jumps across a tiny gap between two coils. The
scientists increased that distance between coils to as much as 7 feet by having
them both resonate at the same frequency.
The energy that travels between them is in the form of a magnetic resonance
that's harmless to living beings, WiTricity Chief Executive Eric Giler said.
"To the magnetic field," Giler said, "you look like air."
One of the main obstacles will be skepticism about safety. When a post about
WiTricity appeared on the latimes.com technology blog, a reader who wears a
pacemaker said she'd never get close to one, and a man writing from Japan
wondered whether the system might "nuke someone by mistake."
Transportation
* Ground: Cars are getting smarter. We drivers remain, well, about as smart as
we ever were.
Researchers are pushing to provide drivers with better, faster information to
avoid crashes and speed traffic flow.
One major effort is dubbed IntelliDrive. Funded by the federal government and
major automobile manufacturers, and overseen by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the program will begin tests of a traffic warning system in San
Francisco next month.
Participating drivers will receive signals on their cellphones alerting them to
bottlenecks approximately 60 seconds ahead. The phone will say, "Slow
traffic ahead" through its speaker phone or headset, and a message will
appear on its screen.
"We call it situational awareness," said Jim Misener, executive
director of California Partners for Advanced Transit and Highways. "It's
not for braking hard but for warning you in advance."
The operators of the program will use traffic information from several existing
sources, including Caltrans, and crunch it to provide the real-time warnings.
Only cellphones using Windows-based operating systems will be able to download
the software to take part in the test -- which leaves out iPhones and
BlackBerrys, among others.
A video showing how it works is at www.intellidriveusa.org/library/videos.php.
The ultimate goal is a dashboard warning system, fed by sensors in cars and
along highways, to alert drivers of potential hazards all around them,
including blind spots.
Far more radical programs take at least some control of cars away from drivers.
The proposed RUF system based in Denmark is called a dual-mode program because
a vehicle incorporating its design can be driven like a regular car or joined
to a mass transit system reminiscent of kids' slot-car toys.
In that system, elevated monorail-style tracks would be built alongside major
freeways, but instead of carrying trains, they'd ferry cars. Motorists would
drive onto the tracks that fit into slots cut into the bottoms of their cars.
That's when the automated system takes over, whisking the vehicles in single
file as if they were on a fast-moving conveyor belt.
The RUF system's name comes from a Danish expression denoting fast movement.
But in an investment brochure aimed at English speakers, inventor Palle Jensen
said it could also stand for Rapid Urban Flexible.
No matter what the name, RUF would be a difficult sell to a city government. A
study on building the system infrastructure in Los Angeles estimated the cost
would be $10 billion. The proposed system can be viewed at www.ruf.dk.
* Commercial aviation: NASA allocated $12.4 million in research grants last
year to Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and others to
develop so-called N+3 concepts -- proposed aircraft designs for three generations,
aeronautically speaking, in the future. That would put them into operation in
the 2030-35 period.
Instead of focusing on building bigger, faster commercial jets, most of these
efforts are aimed at designing aircraft that will be quieter, less polluting
and more fuel efficient.
One NASA-funded project, which is experimenting with natural gas as fuel, is
designing an aircraft that will fly at speeds approximately 10% slower than
current norms.
Other projects are looking at biofuels. Earlier this year, Continental Airlines
Inc. powered a test flight in part with a blend of fuel derived from algae and
the jatropha weed.
* Space elevator: What if you could get to the final frontier by simply
pressing an "Up" button?
It's in the gee-whiz category of future tech, but two university research
groups have done work that could lead to elevators stretching from Earth to the
edge of space.
At the University of Cambridge, scientists are developing carbon-based fibers
far stronger than anything on the market. A practical use would be for
lightweight bulletproof vests.
But some dreamers say it's so strong, it could be used to make the ultimate
elevator.
Meanwhile, a group at York University in Toronto says a better way to go is an
inflatable tower, 9 miles high, made of already available materials filled with
helium and other gases. The York team built a 2,000:1 scale model in a
stairwell.
So why an elevator?
Because launching a vehicle from terra firma, as we now do it, is tremendously
expensive and requires massive amounts of energy. An elevator would eliminate
that step by delivering humans and materials to the edge of space, where the
pull of gravity is far weaker. Waiting spaceships could then take over for the
second leg of the journey.
Let's just hope the arrival and departure announcement system at this transport
station in the sky would be better than at most bus stations. A years-long
flight to Neptune would be no fun if you meant to instead take the red-eye to
Mars.
Television
* 3-D TV: Plenty of experiments have been staged in presenting television
programming in 3-D, but they've been novelties.
Manufacturers hope that high-definition imagery and electronic shutter glasses
will make 3-D palatable enough to make it a regular part of viewing. Indeed, in
Britain, the satellite-delivered Sky TV service said it would launch an all-3-D
channel next year.
But is the average person ready to don dorky glasses to watch TV (without them,
the 3-D picture is just a blur)? Especially when said glasses, even if digital,
can bring on feelings akin to seasickness?
That's what happened when Panasonic Corp. showed off its new 3-D system at the
Consumer Electronics Show this year. Hopefully the nausea problem will be
solved before the product makes it into homes.
* Laser plasma: Using a powerful, pulsed laser, Burton Inc. in Japan has made a
projector that produces 3-D images that hang in the air. So far, it can show
only points of light that can be combined to spell out letters or make a
geometric pattern, and glasses are needed to view them.
But Burton Chief Executive Hidei Kimura said the company hopes to soon
demonstrate "real 3-D images inside of the closed space covered by [a]
glass dome."
* Touchable holograms: This is real "Star Trek" territory.
At the Siggraph trade show in New Orleans in August, a University of Tokyo
research group demonstrated holographic images that could be touched. Sort of.
The images were made, as with all holograms, of light. But as you reached in to
touch them, an electronic tracking system (adapted from a Wii game controller)
and ultrasound generator worked together to provide a tactile sensation where
the object appeared.
A demonstration is at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-P1zZAcPuw.
One of the most clever demonstrations involved holograms of raindrops that
participants could feel dropping on their hands.
It has been often noted that the porn industry drives a lot of the innovation
in high-tech entertainment. No more need be said about what one day it could do
with this.
Medicine
* Robot instruments: At the University of Nebraska, doctors Dmitry Oleynikov
and Shane Farritor developed a set of surgery instruments so small, they can be
inserted into the body and then remote-controlled from outside.
Oleynikov is used to the comparisons to the sci-fi movie "Fantastic
Voyage," in which a team of doctors gets miniaturized to go inside a
patient.
"Except with us," Oleynikov said, "the surgeon does not get
shrunk."
One use, he said, would be to send an instrument through a patient's mouth and
down the esophagus to make a small hole in the stomach. From there it could
remove the gallbladder or appendix. Light could be provided by a second
mini-robot.
The idea is to make surgery far less invasive.
The researchers have raised $1 million so far. They're looking to raise about
$10 million more to fund greater miniaturization and refinements to get the
instruments ready for human trials.
* Nanosurgery: If this works, it could revolutionize the practice of medicine.
The idea is to be able to practice surgery so precisely that a cell or even
molecule could be repaired or manipulated.
It's not a new idea. In 1959, Nobel-winning physicist Richard Feynman suggested
that tools be used to make smaller tools, and then those tools used to make yet
smaller tools and so forth.
Eventually, tools would be created so small, they could target individual
diseased cells while leaving healthy cells alone.
Dreamers of the future have imagined that this could lead to triumphing over a
foe as horrific as cancer.
And that would be a whole lot better than any flying car.
david....@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
Dennis Manning
Palle R Jensen
----- Original Message -----From: Roy Reynolds
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.79/2348 - Release Date: 09/05/09 17:50:00
Jan Lindhe
where can the grassroot exhibition be seen and visited?
Kind regards
Jan G Lindhe
>----Ursprungligt meddelande----
>Från: p...@ruf.dk
>Datum: 2009-09-08 10:36
>Till: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>Ärende: [t-i] Re: LA Times Predicts the Future (including RUF)
Palle R Jensen
It is in the so called "Øksnehallen" in central Copenhagen from Dec. 3rd to
Dec. 6th.
Kind regards
Palle R Jensen
Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.83/2352 - Release Date: 09/07/09
18:03:00