Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

[Brad Templeton]

Looks like the first real PRT (ie. with more than 3 stops) to be built
may be pedal powered. Google just decided they are giving their $1M
transit innovation grant to Shweeb, which says they will be building a
system with it.

Anybody know the cost per km that Shweeb is estimating? Because their
track and vehicles are the lightest around I presume they are hoping
for something decent.

[Jerry Schneider]

Ask them: http://shweeb.com/

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Chris Xithalis]

If you ask me this is not PRT since it lacks a fundamental element: Computer control.

 

Human powered pedals are not exactly the green equivalent of electric motors. They are far less capable when it comes to fast responsive and precise motion, an absolute necessity for PRT.

How do these vehicles avoid collision at merge points?

site: "Pods that want to merge onto another line ascend a conveyor (2) to a higher position so that as soon as the main line is clear, a gate (3) releases the pod and gravity accelerates it to the speed of the new line."

Does that mean the merging vehicle will have to stop first? Who controls the vehicle? The passenger? A computer?

 

 

How do they dispatch empty vehicles to places where they are needed? The site states:

"To maintain a balanced supply, the network staff transport the empty pods back to the residential areas. This is possible because a single staff member can move multiple pods. In the evening the flow reverses."

The problem of course is not whether a single person can move many vehicles but whether a human controlled system can react fast enough to demand fluctuations. In a 'conventional' PRT system, depots always have vehicles ready to dispatch to nearby stations that need them in seconds. Even then it may take several minutes for the vehicles to reach the stations. I can't imagine how this could be done with schweeb in less than 30 minutes. The only possible solution to this is really long queues with empty vehicles at each station but that doesn't seem to be the case:

site: "The station measures only the size of five standard car parking spaces"

 

site: "Given that it takes about 30 seconds for someone to board a Shweeb, a station with one platform of 10 pod lengths could release 10 pods every 30 seconds."

Combining the above statements, a staff member will arrive at a heavily used station with 10 vehicles every 30 seconds (assuming that incoming vehicles are much less that outgoing). Human control only. Is this a joke?

site FAQ section:

"Don't you think people wearing skirts or kilts might be concerned about privacy / dignity? 

We would suggest wearing shorts or trousers for most comfort and peace of mind! In future, pods may have one-way tinted windows so one can see out but not in - this would address the issue directly."

This one was really funny. Do they really think the've solved all technical issues and decided to take care of this? It seems that THIS problem arose at their test/amusement park facility where only a single vehicle runs on each guideway. So they assumed that if THIS is solved, running hundrends of schweebs in a guideway will be a piece of cake...

On the other hand (sigh) they got 1 million $ for this... and lots of press attention...  oh dear...

A general note: It is very easy to get fascinated about a new exclusive guideway system when comparing it against the congested road system. It doesn't matter how bad the "new system" is, it WILL be faster if your vehicle is the only one that travels on it. The real question of course is, can you make your "new system" to handle efficiently in a single guideway many more (or at least the same number of) vehicles than a single road lane ? This is mostly a control related issue yet schweeb only seems to care about energy efficiency, the absolute god of the incoming "green post petroleum era".

Don't get me wrong, schweeb is a fascinating idea and I would really love to ride it in an amusemnt park. But in its current form it definitely doesn't have what it takes to be of any value in a congested city as the videos and articles suggest.

Chris Xithalis

       

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Palle R Jensen]

How can this project be funded in a group of ideas with the headline:
Drive innovation in public transport ???

It is one of the most individual projects you can imagine.

OK, RUF was one of the 6 ideas in the same group, but at least RUF will
probably be public transport in the first phase :-)

Palle R Jensen

[WALTER BREWER]

Palle,

And what is wrong about Public Transport that is for individuals?

Walt Brewer

[Brad Templeton]

I gotta say I'm surprised at the negatives. Somebody gets some
success with a system and the reaction is "It's doesn't match my
vision" and to be critical.

Shweeb contains a large number of elements of most visions of PRT.
Inexpensive overhead guideways, Personal transit (faster than typical
public transit if their claim that unfit individuals can maintain
25kph is true) and offline stations, pod bikes etc. This is an
opportunity to expose the public to those concepts and test them out
in various ways. A chance to learn about public reaction to
guideways and other elements of the system. A chance to learn if
super-lightweight track can indeed be built and installed at low
prices.

Shweeb seems to offer a number of interesting "gateway" concepts that
will be very interesting to see used in practice. Since the vehicles
are the lightest possible in a PRT system, the track can be the
smallest with the least visual intrusion. Tremendous lessons will be
learned from this. The public will perceive the system as the
greenest possible system as well (though in practice human energy is
not that CO2 efficient because of the large amount of fossil fuel used
in our food production.) The question of whether computers can
safely manage the vehicles with short headways is eliminated, and yet
it seems that people will be possibly be able to do things like read
or even watch portable video devices on the longer stretches, since
they claim collisions at track speed will be OK, though that's yet to
be seen. They expect people to form trains where the people in the
back will certainly be able to watch their videos, it's more debatable
about the person in front. Attention is needed for changing lines and
stops.

I do think that they might be wise to develop a small electric module
for use in empty vehicle returns, though their plan of using human
staff at first is simple and elegant, if perhaps not scalable. They
require no power infrastructure on the guideways except perhaps to
light them which can be done with low voltage and no brushes, which is
again vastly simpler and safer than systems which must send hundreds
of kw down lines and into vehicles.

I don't know if it's a long term solution but I think it's very
interesting as an intermediate concept. Where it does well and where
it doesn't will be very interesting results for all to learn from.
Can it divert a lot of traffic from the roads? I think it actually
could do that in certain situations, such as a high traffic corridor
at rush hour, if they add a very small amount of automation and
motorization for empty vehicle moves. To keep batteries small, you
would have one push vehicle push a train of empty pods down the track
in the anticommute direction, and a mechanism to then deposit the
number of needed pods at stations. Possibly the main pusher could
just split N cars off onto the siding and another machine (that lives
at the station and possibly can hook onto vehicles from above or below
for individual control) could put them in their proper place in the
station. I see a few other methods but this is a 2nd stage concept.

[Jack Slade]

Walt, I want to answer that.  First, if public money is used then it should be for something that most members of the public could be able to use. Secondly, build this for bicycle riders and I might have to pay to move it to implement PRT, or that street will do without PRT. I  can't ride a bike anymore, and I know that you can't either.  Is this where tax money to go? What about the wheelchair accessibility that they are going to demand from ME?   St Petersburg, FL, has an old rail line converted to a bike path, at a cost of many millions.  Once I even saw 2 bicycles on it at the same time.  Money should be spent where it is useful.   Jack Slade   Jack Slade --- On Sat, 9/25/10, WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> wrote:

From: WALTER BREWER <catc...@verizon.net> Subject: Re: [t-i] Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 7:02 PM

Palle, And what is wrong about Public Transport that is for individuals? Walt Brewer ----- Original Message ----- From: "Palle R Jensen" <p...@ruf.dk> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [t-i] Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant > How can this project be funded in a group of ideas with the headline: > Drive innovation in public transport ??? > > It is one of the most individual projects you can imagine. > > OK, RUF was one of the 6 ideas in the same group, but at least RUF will probably be public transport in the first phase :-) > > Palle R Jensen > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. > To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jay Andress]

I also think that this is a positive development for PRT. It doesn't take much imagination to add a motor to the vehicles. As a matter of fact think ADA. There actually may be a requirement that there be motors/ADA compliant units. Actually this whole system violates ADA.  Come to think about it this appears to be a major oversight by Google...how about that I'M SMARTER THAN GOOGLE!!!!!

 

 

                                                     Jay Andress

[Benke]

I would be hard pressed to see the public accepting this system. One
thing is that the fit would like to go faster, but get held up by
slower people ahead. The empty vehicle management does not seem at all
realistic, as Chris points out. Another issue would be the bumpers.
They claim a 1.2m deceleration stretch from 25 km/h is a mild bump,
but my calculator says it is 2g! I'd call that a project killer
(although the person involved would probably live).

As for Brad's comment I think that a deficient system like this being
realized does not help PRT gain acceptance. I must add that the no-
video remark of his would apply to all riders, as they wold have to
mind their next diverge where they have to pull the lever left or
right, there is no guarantee that succeding vehicles are aimed at the
same destination as the leader, is there?

Apart from this I think the manual pedaling has a clear advantage as
it feels like forming trains would be safe, thus creating a higgh
capacity. If my 2g number is accurate (please check, it's getting late
here), it is however not safe at all.

When it comes to fossil energy use, wasn't it Brad himself who
calculated the oil use for walking and biking and found it
surprisingly high? Granted, these would use less than biking, but far
from zero, as claimed.

The vehicles being so easy to pedal leads to my final remark: It would
have to be a very high pedal rate for 25 km/h if not even a fit
athlete would be able to go say 35 km/h. As the a is squared compared
to the v this would mean almost a 4g crash into the unsuspecting
grandmother taking a brake in front...

Apart from this I can say that myself and Palle and maybe more on this
list with realistic suggestions entered into the competition were
disappointed to be scrapped in favor of such a toy project.

> > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bun­subs...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at

> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:02 PM 9/25/2010, WALTER BREWER wrote:
>Palle,
>
>And what is wrong about Public Transport that is for individuals?

Could it be a lack of capacity, in the minds of most people?

[Jerry Roane]

Jay

I am with you here.  I think this is a good step.  Once it is used a little people will figure out they can drop a small motor on the pedal assembly and get where they want to go without all the sweat and underarm odor from pedaling.  My family has four stationary bicycles that I can think of.  Each of them has been sitting idle for over fifteen years.  My niece visited my mother a while back and tossed two of those bicycles and my mother (82) came unglued because the bicycles hit the trash to clear them out of the spare bathroom.  My mother at 82 thinks that some day she will want to ride those stationary bicycles for exercise.  Probably she will not but she was irritated at her granddaughter over them.   Point being we all talk about exercise but after the equipment purchase we don't use the stuff.  My wife hangs her coats on our $900 treadmill handlebars.  She had to have it so we bought it but it was used for a season then nothing.  With a guideway system in place it won't take long for them to expand its capabilities and add electric power with a battery pack.  The next evolution will be to have a series of batteries all charged up sitting at the entrance.  After some practical use they will add air conditioning and before you know it it will evolve to either Monomobile, MicroWay, RUF or TriTrack-like systems.  I need to check my patents because the Shweeb looks amazingly like TriTrack in shape and operation.  I thought they were out of Australia so I never looked too hard at their setup.  I did not pay to keep my rights in Australia.    

I think if you try to hang your hat on the ADA you won't get very far.  All it will take is one uphill climb on a guideway that is not dead level and the Shweeb will get either linear motor assists (TriTrack) or pedal power assist for inclines.   

Jerry Roane

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

This is where the sales job has to come in.  I remember when Bush II was getting hammered about no weapons of mass destruction.  If you look at that, there are 1.3 billion who identify themselves with being Muslim.  There are 1 billion who identify themselves as Christian.  (round numbers) If 1.3 billion Muslims went on a fight with sticks, bee bee guns and rocks would not that collectively be a weapon of mass destruction?  Public Transport to me just means the public paid for it and the public intends to use it.  A million individual cars would equal one car with a million seats right?  

What we have to do is alter the mindset for sure.  What we have ain't workin'. 

Jerry Roane 

[Dennis Manning]

Biggest flaw is simply that the percentage of people willing to use bicycles
to go to and fro is too small to justify the infrastructure cost even if
less than PRT infrastructure.

As to Brad's comments that it is a test bed for PRT systems - nonsense. It
lacks too many PRT characteristics.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Benke" <bengt.gu...@beamways.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:27 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

>> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.- D�lj citerad

>> >text -
>>
>> - Visa citerad text -
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Dennis Manning]

PRT is often challenged for perceived lack of capacity. Unfortunately the
capacity measuring stick is line haul not the real measuring stick which is
network capacity which PRT wins hands down.

What's puzzling about this mind set when discussing mass transit is that the
auto with a maximum line haul capacity figure of about 2000 vehicles per
hour on a freeway lane compared with a maximum mass transit capacity of
around 50,000 people per hour for a single track never ask themselves why
the seemingly low line haul numbers carry the vast majority of passengers.

They just don't grasp the significance of the difference between line haul
capacity and network capacity.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:37 PM
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: Re: [t-i] Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

> At 12:02 PM 9/25/2010, WALTER BREWER wrote:

[Palle R Jensen]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Templeton" <bra...@gmail.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 10:09 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

>
> I gotta say I'm surprised at the negatives. Somebody gets some
> success with a system and the reaction is "It's doesn't match my
> vision" and to be critical.

I love innovative ideas but I fear the consequences for the development of
new concepts.

Think about how easy it will now be to ridicule PRT systems. The train
supporters will love it.

I think the problem lies in the way the competition was organized.
The public vote will favor an exciting idea no matter if it is relevant as a
transport solution.

SWEEB is an exciting idea - for an amusement park, but i find it very
difficult to see it as a realistic alternative to existing Public Transport
systems.

Palle R Jensen

[Brad Templeton]

Shweeb's web site claims that the energy to keep their unit going at
25kph is similar to that of walking at 5kph, which means -- if the
claim is true -- that people would not be arriving at work all sweaty
and tired, and that even low fitness people could do it. And even
people who can't use their legs could probably use it with their arms
though perhaps not quite as easily. I suspect that by classifying
it as a bicycle way they might avoid ADA (if they do it in the USA at
all) since people who make bicycles don't have to make them ADA
compliant.

I suspect it will mostly be for flat cities, or limited hills, though
they have designed a motor that pulls slower vehicles up the hills, I
don't imagine they plan to do that to the level a mountain city would
require. (On the other hand you could go very far with just a few
uphill escalators and people going up and then down to get to
destinations, the going down requiring no effort. I could imagine a
system where every trip involves first going up the hill (being pulled
up) and coasting quickly to your destination, the way a roller coaster
works.

It's not going to replace a city's transit system (though many of the
world's cities have very large amounts of cycle commuting, and it
might do a lot in those places or places that can become like them)
but it would demonstrate some PRT concepts that others have not had
luck in selling, and so I remain disturbed at people thinking it's
something bad for PRT.

As to whether you can watch a video, I doubt they plan that, but it
does seem like it would be possible on a long bike commute on a major
route that does not require lane changes. I could see a system
where you got in a pod, pedaled until you joined a train, and then
just pedaled gently for 20 minutes (a trip of about 8km) while reading
or watching video. Then back to being in control for the final leg
to your destination station.

This could be enabled by a computer system that tells you when you
need to watch, ie. transfer coming up, other vehicle coming up ahead
or behind. Even telling you when to lean left or right by audio
clues rather than visual ones. Such a system would be very easy to
build. I watch TV while on my exercise bike all the time, it's
perfectly workable. I could even see some people working on the
computer. If the commute involves a lot of line changes it would be
harder, but with an audio alert system even that's doable.

On Sep 25, 9:40 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Biggest flaw is simply that the percentage of people willing to use bicycles
> to go to and fro is too small to justify the infrastructure cost even if
> less than PRT infrastructure.
>
> As to Brad's comments that it is a test bed for PRT systems - nonsense. It
> lacks too many PRT characteristics.
>
> --------------------------------------------------

> From: "Benke" <bengt.gustafs...@beamways.com>

> >> > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> > .
> >> > For more options, visit this group at

> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.-D lj citerad

[gerar...@gmail.com]

Technical post to help me clearing my lettre box

[Jay Andress]

Dennis,

 

   Good point...network capacity of PRT. Though my argument about substituting ULTRA for the Morgantown system (capacity problems) is still valid because you have only one line (with a couple of spurs).

                                                                Jay

[Jay Andress]

There are several possibilities to solve some of the Shweeb problems. Electric motorized bicycles are very popular in China. These use a small hub motor to power assist the pedaling. MIT has even develop a completely wireless hub motor for bikes that could be installed in about 10 minutes.

   I still don't think that this system passes ADA requirements. As a system that is to be used by the public (even though it is on a private business property) it must meet ADA requirements. Pedaling with your arms is not going to come close to meeting that requirement. Until corrected I maintain that I AM SMARTER THAN GOOGLE!!!! :-)))

   Does anyone have the contact at Google...I would like to ask them about ADA and the Shweeb system. Let's see how smart they really are!

 

                                                         Jay

[WALTER BREWER]

One difference in the real world. Actual occupants using the very high
transit line haul capacies, standing, seated, sitting on the roof top etc,
turn out to be less than just one freeway lane. (A few exceptins peak hours
in USA where NYC activity levels occur of course.)

San Diego is starting to fight the NIMBY battle about significant expansion
on I-5 along the coast, The well run commuter rail in this very busy
corridor carries less than 1/2 a freeway lane. And the anti I-5 expansion
first suggestion is to add a track for commuter trains!

PRT indeed needs to get across the point about the whole trip, and about how
off the mark high sardine style capacity differs from what travelers want.

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----

[WALTER BREWER]

No doubt that's the way community planners would look at it. Then the line
haul argument etc etc starts.

But my question to Palle was philosophic, not funtional nor aimed at any
particular way to implement urban transportation nor critical of anyone.

Think of a typical, (USA at least), city. Usually two primary transportation
systems; autos, and mass transit. A few very high activity centers excepted,
vast majority use autos. The best the non-users can do is mass transit.

In San Diego at least about 30% don't drive; too young/old, disabled, can't
afford a car, don't want to, etc.
But only 5% OF THOSE show up using mass transit. Mass transit is only about
1/4 those with access to autos.

So to me a good argument for PRT is that it provides the same quality of on
demand personal service as autos. And it can well be public transportation
with an individual emphasis for all. (I define individual, as with autos, to
includu up to 4 traveling together.)
In view of considerable planning emphasis these days to accommodate those
with low incomes, here is a helpful approach.

As noted on this list there are many other arguments about the Shweeb human
powered "PRT" on guideways.

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

[Dennis Manning]

Walt:

Exactly. I used max use of NYC system. What actually occurs on rail systems
throughout the country is far far less.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "WALTER BREWER" <catc...@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 7:31 AM

[Dennis Manning]

Jay:

 

I don't now the maximum hourly demand on the MT system so it's hard to guess if substituting ULTra would cause problems. It's just my hunch that ULTra could handle it.

[WALTER BREWER]

See my few minutes ago message to Jerry Schneider.

 

As noted my comment wasn't for or against Shweeb or similar

 

Adding to the several comments posted however;

Weather proofing may be one arument in favor compared to ordinary bikes. Including icy road surfice. (Although I guess non-USA bike riders are much more brave on snow and ice.)

The other is safety;separation from other traffic. I don't know if anyone has bike accident/death rates on a passenger-mile basis, but they must be bad compared to autos.

 

On the otherhand, why restrict a form of personal transportation that can use extensive existing streets, alleys, maybe sidewalks to give true doorstep to doorstep service to whatever guideways can be afforded?

 

This is also an argument comparing PRT with autos of course, and quicky induces the dual-mode subject.

 

And incidently regarding 5km/hr without showering. Try walking thus for a few klicks.

 

However I do ride my bike, weather permitting, 4 to 5 miles per day. Mostly rec, and exercise, and for a few errands. I try to avoid busy streets however.

 

 Walt Brewer

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

I think a lot of cyclists would LOVE to be able to ride their bikes
all winter long safely, above the snow and ice and in a sheltered
bubble. They/we would pay to use it.

Passing lanes would be required on hills. Shweeb says they will have
solar powered "conveyor chains" to haul slower riders up hills. I
think they should just provide gears instead - it should be about
getting a workout, you're going to get sweaty anyway (maybe showers at
stations?). The ability to push other bikes if they are slower should
be encouraged. A little computer could measure effort and
automatically determine which lane each bike gets. It could also give
you a readout of calories burned, etc... A dynamo could power the
electronics. So some switches could be automated. In fact, "just"
adding a computer (and network?) would allow pre-programmed
destination handling with automated switching (rfid at each switch, on
board computer does route switching, some way of comparing effort in a
peloton for passing lane selection ( bluetooth or wi-fi
negotiation?)). And Brad's video idea would also work.

I can't see this helping advance PRT in cities, though it will benefit
from PRT research. I think it's a great system to spend $1 million
on. $1 million on most city PRT systems wouldn't go very far.

F.

> > >> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.-Dlj citerad
> > >> >text -
>
> > >> - Visa
>
> ...
>
> read more »

[Jerry Schneider]

At 10:10 PM 9/25/2010, you wrote:
>PRT is often challenged for perceived lack of capacity.
>Unfortunately the capacity measuring stick is line haul not the real
>measuring stick which is network capacity which PRT wins hands down.
>
>What's puzzling about this mind set when discussing mass transit is
>that the auto with a maximum line haul capacity figure of about 2000
>vehicles per hour on a freeway lane compared with a maximum mass
>transit capacity of around 50,000 people per hour for a single track
>never ask themselves why the seemingly low line haul numbers carry
>the vast majority of passengers.
>
>They just don't grasp the significance of the difference between
>line haul capacity and network capacity.

I agree, but I have not discovered anyway to "make network capacity"
visible to lay persons. Throwing lots of numbers at them from
simulations doesn't do it, so far as I can tell. Video after video of
PRT's in operation, showing a few widely-spaced vehicles (the old
Aerospace and Korean videos - which few people have seen - being
somewhat of an exception) provide a very visual confirmation of the
common perception that "capacity is too low" to a public that has
been conditioned from early childhood that large MASS TRANSIT
capacities are required in cities. Have you found a way to convince
lay people that PRT's network capacity capabilities are sufficient
for widespread applications in cities?

[Jack Slade]

Yes, Walt,  and I can still ride too, but one of my knees doesn't like it.  It would be unreliable, because some days I wouldn't go 10 blocks without trouble, so I have to rule it out as a transport system.   Jack Slade

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

Render time is why animated videos don's show thousands of cars on the guideways.  Each vehicle in as video takes a hundred thousand or so polygons to make a nice image that is passable for realism.  Doing the math the camera view with 2000 cars at 100,000 polygons each gets you to 200 million polygons before you even add the city scenery.  Avitar was done with the largest budget ever and they still did not have high definition creatures in the herd scenes.  The herd scenes are done with low polygon count versions and only a few behaviors are guiding the herd of army dudes over the terrain.  With some funding it would be very easy to create fully populated videos showing thousands of small cars moving thousands of virtual people.  That expenditure would help create a better public image but obviously a physical car driving down the highway at 110 mph would be more effective today.  It is just a matter of budget priority of why there are not thousands of cars on the guideway in our videos.  Rending each still image cell in a movie takes about 3 minutes with a couple cars in it.  That render time and expense can explode as you add complexity and cool photorealistic features.  It would only take a thousand bucks or so to make a video as described from the sparse ones built.

Jerry Roane 

[WALTER BREWER]

My solution to that problem was very direct.

 

Get two new knees! They work fine, but now my back hurts a bit.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:26 AM 9/26/2010, you wrote:
>Jerry
>
>Render time is why animated videos don's show thousands of cars on
>the guideways. Each vehicle in as video takes a hundred thousand or
>so polygons to make a nice image that is passable for
>realism. Doing the math the camera view with 2000 cars at 100,000
>polygons each gets you to 200 million polygons before you even add
>the city scenery. Avitar was done with the largest budget ever and
>they still did not have high definition creatures in the herd
>scenes. The herd scenes are done with low polygon count versions
>and only a few behaviors are guiding the herd of army dudes over the
>terrain. With some funding it would be very easy to create fully
>populated videos showing thousands of small cars moving thousands of
>virtual people. That expenditure would help create a better public
>image but obviously a physical car driving down the highway at 110
>mph would be more effective today. It is just a matter of budget
>priority of why there are not thousands of cars on the guideway in
>our videos. Rending each still image cell in a movie takes about 3
>minutes with a couple cars in it. That render time and expense can
>explode as you add complexity and cool photorealistic features. It
>would only take a thousand bucks or so to make a video as described
>from the sparse ones built.

I understand the problem. I am not suggesting thousands, only 10-20
where there are now 2-3.

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[Dennis Manning]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>

Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 9:19 AM

To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

> At 10:10 PM 9/25/2010, you wrote:

Alas neither have I. For now good videos seem the best,

[Brad Templeton]

I do think passing lanes would be a good idea but they don't yet
describe them. It is a bit complex unless the lanes are quite long,
since you must assure there is no risk of hitting the vehicle you are
passing when you rejoin. One way to do that would be to send the
slower vehicle up an incline where it loses most of its energy and
goes slow and then back down a slope it recovers that energy, after it
has been passed. You could in fact stop the vehicle being passed
entirely and not let it go through until the passing vehicle has
rejoined. This would of course annoy the person being passed, and
they might resist it strongly. The etiquette will be interesting
since before you are being passed you are in a train and being pushed,
and after you are alone and behind. Some big issues there.

This may be why they don't include the concept. They may need to have
a reputation system for people who decide to just sit there and be
pushed. The vehicles actually could pretty easily measure how much
power the pedals generate and if the vehicle is pushed, and score the
rider, and anybody who lets themselves get pushed too much gets
penalized or charged extra money or eventually banned.

Now, as for the ADA, one obvious answer to this is that this is not a
U.S. company and their trial will probably not be in the USA, but who
knows. However, it is an interesting question whether a pedal system
has to be ADA compliant. The automated bike rental systems in various
cities are not set up for the disabled. Segway rental services do not
support the must-sit disabled.

However, one answer may just be battery powered units available for
the disabled. And possibly for those who pay extra too, but who
knows.

I think one of the many clever things here is that the system is non-
powered, and as such the track does not have to be electrified, other
than perhaps some low voltage wires for LEDs. If there are computers
in the pods they can be the sort that will run for a week on a
battery, but if not, battery swap or recharge in station is quite
doable.

The pods are clearly going to be about the lightest you can imagine a
PRT pod being, and as such the track will also be the lightest duty
and among the cheapest. As a way to get started I think that's
brilliant. There are many questions people ask about PRT, and
Shweeb has new answers to several of them.

Now as it turns out Larry Page is a PRT fan (though he's also a
robocar fan and a Gondola travel fan.) I have not asked him if he had
any personal hand in picking Shweeb but I would not be surprised.
The sort of PRT that he has said he liked the most in the past has
been "station anywhere" PRT where pods can descend on cables from the
guideway to let people on and off anywhere they can pause, but I can
see why Shweeb was also interesting.

> ...
>
> read more »

[eph]

Based on their FAQ, they are marketing to the general public, not the
sporty, so my evaluation is off-base anyway in that respect. I don't
know why people who don't enjoy sport would want to travel at 25 km/h
in relative discomfort (no heating or air conditioning). I would want
to go faster and be allowed to pass/be passed. Gating the top should
work - maybe a first there first through sort of scheme or something
based on performance. If you are slower, you can catch your breath
for a few seconds at the top, that can't really be a big problem.

BTW, seems the system is capable of detecting stopped vehicles maybe
it already has a network available?
"What if a pod breaks down / gets stuck somewhere along the rail?
To date, this has never happened - Shweeb pods seem to be
indestructible! However, if a pod were to stop moving, electronic
sensors would alert the station staff to problems."

Just for fun, here's a page describing winter cycling in Ottawa:
http://www.icebike.org/Articles/Ottawa.htm

F.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dennis Manning]

There's a wonderful bicycle path that runs for about six miles and is about
a quarter mile from my home. It tunnels under cross streets for an
unobstructed ride on a paved landscaped 100 foot wide path. I'm sure it
enhances to some extent the value of nearby residential properties. I often
cross over and see down the path. The most striking thing is that how many
of these looks reveal few people are using it. It's empty of riders or
walkers most of the time. A good addition to the town? BTW it was developed
because of abandoned railroad right of way.

My point is that demand for bicycle paths is a very small percentage of
overall transportation demand. There simply is only a small percentage of
people that want to get around on a bicycle. It's hard to justify the
expense of an elevated bicycle system.

The talk is about low cost infrastructure - I'd challenge that assumption.
Take a look at how massive the structures are for elevated pedestrian
crossings over freeways. They are designed to accommodate the max
anticipated loading. It's pretty high if pedestrians are cheek to jowl on
the structure even if it's a rare event. What weight requirements would be
imposed on a bike/PRT system. I think it would be much higher than simply
accommodating the dispersed bike riders, and hence more expensive
infrastructure than is being envisioned.

Dennis

--------------------------------------------------
From: "eph" <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2010 9:12 PM

>> read more �

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Brad Templeton]

As it turns out the belief that there is low demand for bicycle paths
is common in the USA but known to be false in a variety of other
places. Some cities are incredibly bicycle oriented. Portland is
highest in the USA at 4% bike commute but there are 1st world cities
in Europe -- it approaches 30% in the Netherlands.

In 3rd world cities it is also quite high, though there is no question
that wealth sends more to cars. Beijing used to be crowded with bikes
just 5 years ago but now is going car-heavy to the point that the
large bike lanes now have cars in them.

However, there are certainly many places where "it's like cycling"
would be a major upside, not downside to selling something like
this. Due to the greatly reduced energy needed to pedal a faired
vehicle on steel rails, I could easily see it winning out over the
bicycle (and the car) with various trade-offs. This should be much
easier, with a direct ride without stops and obstacles where you can
watch a video some of the time. Taking your bike lets you go
anywhere, though, not just to stations on the system. (The same issue
transit and PRT have.)

On Sep 26, 10:45 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> There's a wonderful bicycle path that runs for about six miles and is about
> a quarter mile from my home. It tunnels under cross streets for an
> unobstructed ride on a paved landscaped 100 foot wide path. I'm sure it
> enhances to some extent the value of nearby residential properties.  I often
> cross over and see down the path. The most striking thing is that how many
> of these looks reveal few people are using  it. It's empty of riders or
> walkers most of the time. A good addition to the town? BTW it was developed
> because of abandoned railroad right of way.
>
> My point is that demand for bicycle paths is a very small percentage of
> overall transportation demand. There simply is only a small percentage of
> people that want to get around on a bicycle. It's hard to justify the
> expense of an elevated bicycle system.
>
> The talk is about low cost infrastructure -  I'd challenge that assumption.
> Take a look at how massive the structures are for elevated pedestrian
> crossings over freeways. They are designed to accommodate the max
> anticipated loading. It's pretty high if pedestrians are cheek to jowl on
> the structure even if it's a rare event. What weight requirements would be
> imposed on a bike/PRT system.  I think it would be much higher than simply
> accommodating the dispersed bike riders, and hence more expensive
> infrastructure than is being envisioned.
>
> Dennis
>
> --------------------------------------------------

> From: "eph" <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jack Slade]

That would require that everybody pedal their own vehicle, instead of relaxing while the more energetic people did most of the work.  Are you sure this will work, in our society? For example, is this the way you would like to go to work? Jack Slade --- On Mon, 9/27/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jerry Roane]

Dennis

You bring up a very major point in pedestrian and bicycle walkway design.  It is quite often that you hear a news story about fatalities when a bunch of people get on a structure and overload it.  Austin just had a balcony fall of the building when enough young people all went out on the poorly designed and built structure and it collapsed.  There was the hotel structure that fractured and fell when enough party goers got up on the walkways combined with a construction contractor who thought he was smarter than the design engineer and instead of threading the rod the full length he use two rods and let the concrete tie them together.  The result can be deadly when you pack too many humans onto a structure.  It is enough to shear a concrete slab because young people like to jam together tightly every once in a while.  If there is no active weighing of the load on the structure no one knows how in danger their lives are.  The worst load on one of these structures is when music is playing so the load can be cyclic if kids start to sway or stomp with the beat.  

The other idea you mention is bicycling in an enclosed chamber.  Part of why bicycling is enjoyable is the breeze you generate as you move forward.  This counters the heat you need to dump to the air as you pedal.  In warmer climates having a shield on your bike may make you too hot to enjoy bicycle riding.  Perhaps if they enclosed the bikes in air conditioning and set the thermostat pretty cool that might work.  

Jerry Roane 

[Ken MacLeod]

On Sep 26, 11:19 am, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> I agree, but I have not discovered anyway to "make network capacity"
> visible to lay persons.

I wrote the simulator used to create this,

http://www.prtconsulting.com/prtconceptvideos06.html

mostly for the purpose of visualizing capacity issues. It uses
realistic algorithms for vehicles and people movement. One of the
other example simulations shows the concept of a rail/bus station
"loading all at once" vs. two PRT stations loading continuously.

The source code (in Python) is here,

http://prt.sourceforge.net/

-- Ken

[Jerry Schneider]

At 10:41 AM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
>On Sep 26, 11:19 am, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> > I agree, but I have not discovered anyway to "make network capacity"
> > visible to lay persons.
>
>I wrote the simulator used to create this,
>
> http://www.prtconsulting.com/prtconceptvideos06.html
>
>mostly for the purpose of visualizing capacity issues. It uses
>realistic algorithms for vehicles and people movement. One of the
>other example simulations shows the concept of a rail/bus station
>"loading all at once" vs. two PRT stations loading continuously.

Interesting - it would be helpful to know what assumptions about
minimum headway were used, what
occupancy levels were used, vehicle capacity, is any ride-sharing
used, what is mainline speed, etc. Do no full vehicles
arrive that debark people who want to transfer to the LRT?. The
headways between merging and mainline vehicles looks
very (perhaps unrealistically) small and the acceleration seems quite
rapid. A digital clock would be nice too.

For me, the old Korean (SkyCar) animation represents the kind of
animation that I think is badly needed to deal with the infernal
capacity visualization problem - it must be 20 years old by now and
needs an update and a broader look at an entire, small, network.

>The source code (in Python) is here,
>
> http://prt.sourceforge.net/
>
> -- Ken
>

>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[eph]

Wow. That's impressive programming. Is SimPyTransit lgpl like SimPy
is? The files don't seem to be accessible, so I could not check.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

I think this would be more effective if it showed three parallel guideways entering/leaving the station on the left of the screen.  Inside the box thinking would show one rail line feeding one PRT guideway but outside the box thinking would add no such false restrictions.  A phrase I use with my effort all the time is:  "There are no rules."  Who says one rail line has to feed only one advanced transportation system path?  I would prefer if this simulation included the option to add N lines leaving and show N lines arriving to make any sense.  The platform will get full when the light rail train is late but all simulations need a nod to cost or they are just math class exercises.  If one light rail or HSR train with its 156 passengers shows up and dumps every hour and the passengers leave the station on three parallel guideways the dollars are drastically in favor of guideways not maglev rigid rail on 100% solid concrete superstructure.    The graphic of the simulation needs to show a bucket of public money pouring over the side into a lake on the side that is less cost effective at a rate proportionate to the loss the public takes by authorizing light rail. 

In addition to adding two more parallel minimum paths along the same direction this station needs three guideways 90 degrees to the present lines.  Any station in a grid would be joined to a line haul at a grid intersection not in the middle of a straight piece of guideway.  That alone doubles the throughput.  As a bare minimum this simulation should show an intersection.  

Easy arm chair quarterbacking of course.  The simulation is great but it could show superior service as opposed to adequate service.   

Jerry Roane 

[Ken MacLeod]

On Sep 27, 1:14 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> At 10:41 AM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
> >    http://www.prtconsulting.com/prtconceptvideos06.html
>
> >mostly for the purpose of visualizing capacity issues.  It uses
> >realistic algorithms for vehicles and people movement.

> Interesting - it would be helpful to know what assumptions about
> minimum headway were used, what occupancy levels were used,
> vehicle  capacity, is any ride-sharing used, what is mainline
> speed, etc.

All of these are variables that can be set in the code. In the
"transfer" simulation above, the minimum headway is 0.5 second and
PRTs are entering the scene randomly at 1 - 2 seconds apart.
Occupancy is 4 persons but there's no ride-sharing in this sim. Line
speed is 25mph.

> Do no full vehicles arrive that debark people who want to transfer to the LRT?.

Not in that simulation, it was meant only to visualize "how can PRT
take on a whole train emptying at the same time." The assumption
would be like an "in-bound" rush hour, but nonetheless I didn't
including any debarking passengers at all, however 70% of mainline
PRTs are occupied and passing the station to give a proper ratio of
the supply of empties to the station.

> The headways between merging and mainline vehicles looks
> very (perhaps unrealistically) small

The merge window is twice the headway but there's a bug in that
version where the merging vehicle merges more closely to the vehicle
ahead.

> and the acceleration seems quite rapid.

The acceleration and jerk are 0.125G (1.25m/s^2). The animation is
running at 3X speed.

> For me, the old Korean (SkyCar) animation represents the kind of
> animation that I think is badly needed to deal with the infernal
> capacity visualization problem - it must be 20 years old by now and
> needs an update and a broader look at an entire, small, network.

Is the SkyCar animation available online?

-- Ken

[Ken MacLeod]

On Sep 27, 2:29 pm, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wow.  That's impressive programming.  Is SimPyTransit lgpl like SimPy
> is?  The files don't seem to be accessible, so I could not check.

Yes, same license as SimPy. Here's the working CVS browse link,

http://prt.cvs.sourceforge.net/prt

-- Ken

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:50 PM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
>On Sep 27, 1:14 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> > At 10:41 AM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
> > > http://www.prtconsulting.com/prtconceptvideos06.html
> >
> > >mostly for the purpose of visualizing capacity issues. It uses
> > >realistic algorithms for vehicles and people movement.
>
> > Interesting - it would be helpful to know what assumptions about
> > minimum headway were used, what occupancy levels were used,
> > vehicle capacity, is any ride-sharing used, what is mainline
> > speed, etc.
>
>All of these are variables that can be set in the code. In the
>"transfer" simulation above, the minimum headway is 0.5 second and
>PRTs are entering the scene randomly at 1 - 2 seconds apart.
>Occupancy is 4 persons but there's no ride-sharing in this sim. Line
>speed is 25mph.

If the viewed could see and set the values of the variables, without having
to deal with the "code" that would be good. Since nobody I know of is
intending to operate at 0.5 headways I think you should not use it. Do
the vehicles have 4 seats or do all departing vehicles have 4 passengers?
If the latter, that should be changed to a more reasonable figure.

> > Do no full vehicles arrive that debark people who want to
> transfer to the LRT?.
>
>Not in that simulation, it was meant only to visualize "how can PRT
>take on a whole train emptying at the same time." The assumption
>would be like an "in-bound" rush hour, but nonetheless I didn't
>including any debarking passengers at all, however 70% of mainline
>PRTs are occupied and passing the station to give a proper ratio of
>the supply of empties to the station.
> > The headways between merging and mainline vehicles looks
> > very (perhaps unrealistically) small
>
>The merge window is twice the headway but there's a bug in that
>version where the merging vehicle merges more closely to the vehicle
>ahead.

I hope you can debug it.

> > and the acceleration seems quite rapid.
>
>The acceleration and jerk are 0.125G (1.25m/s^2). The animation is
>running at 3X speed.

What's the reason for that? Isn't that deceptive, since it's not
indicated on the screen?

> > For me, the old Korean (SkyCar) animation represents the kind of
> > animation that I think is badly needed to deal with the infernal
> > capacity visualization problem - it must be 20 years old by now and
> > needs an update and a broader look at an entire, small, network.
>
>Is the SkyCar animation available online?

Yes, it's posted at www.prtnz.com
(in New Zealand) but I've not been
able to get it run continuously and smoothly - don't know why. It's
under "videos" on page 2.
I've asked them about it but have had no response yet. It's only 1.18
minutes long.

Jerry

[Kirston Henderson]

Jerry,

At our MicroWay top speed of 65-mph and ultimate maximum individual
vehicle spacing of approximately 50-feet under the future fully automated
mode, that 0.5-sec headway would be about correct.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems

----------
>From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Visualizing capacity (was Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT

gets a $1M Google Grant

>Date: 27, Sep, 2010, 3:34 PM

[Jerry Schneider]

At 02:05 PM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
>Jerry,
>
> At our MicroWay top speed of 65-mph and ultimate maximum individual
>vehicle spacing of approximately 50-feet under the future fully automated
>mode, that 0.5-sec headway would be about correct.

OK - if that is your intention, so be it. So far as I know, nobody
else currently has this intention nor has
anyone else actually done it with multiple full scale vehicles (with
the possible exception of Cabintaxi at their test track).
Do you mean "ultimate minimum individual spacing" instead of "maximum"?

I realize that high capacity PRT advocates say it is possible - and
acceptable for public service - but I think
it remains to be proven and should not be presented as anything more
than an intention or eventual possibility.
If I am wrong, I'd be pleased to be corrected.

[Ken MacLeod]

On Sep 27, 3:34 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

> Do the vehicles have 4 seats or do all departing vehicles have
> 4 passengers?

In that simulation, there's only one person embarking per vehicle.

> At 12:50 PM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
> >The acceleration and jerk are 0.125G (1.25m/s^2).  The animation is
> >running at 3X speed.
>
> What's the reason for that? Isn't that deceptive, since it's not
> indicated on the screen?

The stopwatch was intended to show real-time. Each tick is one minute
and there's 7 ticks (and an extra half-minute before the top tick).
The video on prtconsulting.com is scaled down from the original so the
ticks are harder to read. I've uploaded the original to the group
files,

http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators/web/transfer.mpeg

-- Ken

[WALTER BREWER]

Isn't a more useful visualization and quantification of area capacities for
other modes,especially autos, and mass transit with transfers etc?

I've wondered about one small step is to rates systems in passenger-miles
per acre instead of per highway lane for example.

Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----

From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Visualizing capacity (was Re: Shweeb human-powered
PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

[eph]

Found the SkyCar video at the website, available on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36SdgB_8jjk&feature=player_embedded

I had to move the cursor (position) past the first few seconds, then
it worked but was a bit jerky.

F.

[Kirston Henderson]

Jerry,

I sorry, but the "maximum individual spacing" was supposed to read
"minimum individual spacing." The maximum spacing would be whatever the
traffic demand. I would not expect to see the minimum spacing situation
develop in many cases because I would expect that additional vehicle
pathways would be added long before such a close spacing became commonplace.
If you were ever to approach such a maximum capacity situation, the system
would have been sufficiently successful that providing alternate paths would
be financially viable.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems

----------

>From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

>Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Visualizing capacity (was Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT
gets a $1M Google Grant

>Date: 27, Sep, 2010, 4:35 PM

[eph]

Ken,
Have you (or anyone else) managed to get the MAIT "innovative
Transport Simulator (iTS)" working? It runs in python but uses older
versions of libraries and software (last updated in 2007), so it's not
working out of the box.

http://www.trasporti.ing.unibo.it/personale/schweizer/mait/projects/index.html#its

It looks pretty interesting and is free to download but can't be
redistributed without permission. It might be useful even to just use
the output data for simulations for example.

F.

[Jerry Schneider]

I think that one of the most interesting things about the Shweeb
situation is their use of an amusement ride to "prove" their concept
and to generate some cash for additional development. I"ve never
understood why some amusement park owner or equipment supplier has
not used this approach for a PRT technology (altho I do think that
JPods definitely has it in mind, perhaps MISTER as well). Also,
Intimin, the Swiss company did compete with Ed Anderson for the
Chicago RTA job and they are a global supplier of roller coaster
equipment and other amusement equipment but have not followed up on
their PRT interest, so far as I know. www.intamin.com

Another good selling point is the calorie-burning attribute that it
offers which should be of interest to those that are working to
combat obesity among our young people and who advocate "walkable
communities" in large part because they require burning some calories.

[Kirston Henderson]

I think that these people would have to devise means to move empty
vehicles to points that other users could use them. Having sufficient staff
on hand do do this would likely be an unacceptable operating cost factor.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems
---------

>From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

>Subject: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant
>Date: 28, Sep, 2010, 3:27 PM

[Brad Templeton]

Depends on how complex their system is. They imply a staffer could
push a large number of pods down the line (and the staffer could also
get an electric assist in their pod easily enough) and there's merit
to having staff visit the stations from time to time anyway.

I expect the prototype system will probably be simple, just a single
line, 2 at most, with 2 terminus stations and some number of offline
stations in the middle. If a staffer, particularly with assist, can
guide 50 pods back along the line dropping some at intermediary
stations but mostly getting them back to the source stations, a fairly
small staff of $24/hour (total cost) workers could return a lot of
pods. For a return of 20 minutes, let's imagine an hour of staff
time to go there and back again plus split up units at stations, or
about 50 cents for each pod return. That's not too bad a cost to add
on to the cost of the trip. If they can only handle 25 pods it's
about a buck.

Hell, I doubt you would have to pay them that much. After all, there
are gyms where people pay, rather than get paid, to sit on an
exercise bike for an hour. You mostly need this morning and
afternoon.

Another big advantage of Shweeb that I see is their pods are
presumably about as cheap as a PRT pod can get. So it's not out of
the question to just make a lot of them and store them (they are
small) for some of the rush hour imbalance.

You can also do other tricks, like make anticommute trips free or even
paid if you will push some other pods. Doesn't take a lot of people
willing to do this to help things a lot. You can also correct
imbalance by only selling return tickets to rush hour commuters --
perhaps even saying a return trip costs less than a one way trip at
rush hour, making sure people return their pod in the evening or incur
a cost for not going back on the system. Not a killer cost, just
enough to keep the balance.

But you are going to get imbalance, even with this, which is where the
staff would come in.

On Sep 28, 3:08 pm, "Kirston Henderson"

[WALTER BREWER]

I've mentioned before the system used at Livermore National Labs.

Take and leave regular bikes. Then a truck with bike racks circulates and
picks up excesses that developed.

Whether truck driver decides how many to return where, or a complicated
algorithm, I don't know.

Walt Brewer

--

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:08 PM 9/28/2010, Kirston Henderson wrote:
> I think that these people would have to devise means to move empty
>vehicles to points that other users could use them. Having sufficient staff
>on hand do do this would likely be an unacceptable operating cost factor.

I think it would depend on the application. If the demand for service
is many-to-many,
the empty vehicle redistribution problem might not be too great. If
it is many-to-one or
many-to-few, then it could be quite significant. For example, if it
is a corridor application, from a
parking lot to an office building, it would be a large problem. If it
is a campus where
their are multiple buildings that have substantial flows between
them, it might not
be so large. Of course, time of use is another major variable as even
a many-to-many
flow pattern needs to be maintained over time to insure that the
empties are where you need
them,when you need them.

[Kirston Henderson]

They would also need to solve the problem of storing the bikes at
stations when not in use. This problem also will exist for any PRT
system, but a powered system can easily move the vehicles to storage
guideway sections, many of which would probably be located at or near
stations. Except for system such as ULTra, provision of the
necessary guideway switches becomes a large problem. I don't remember
seeing anything regard to Shweeb switching but they may not have
addressed that problem. If they have workable and affordable
solutions to these problems, the people at Google might not have
wasted their money after all and might be smarter than we may think.
As for me, I would like to see some more engineering detail of their
system.

Kirston Henderson

[Jack Slade]

Kirston, I think you can forget about seeing any engineering for this project. Somebody has just scooped Google for a million bucks. It sounds as stupid as requiring a servant, on foot, proceeding at night in front of
an early-model automobile.

Here you have servants, (On foot?) following bicyclists home to push the pods back. How? On the guideway? On the sidewalk, or the street? Is this really worth talking about?

Jack Slade

--- On Wed, 9/29/10, Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com> wrote:

> From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

> --You received this message because you are subscribed to

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

The answer is very simple for redistribution.  The empty bicycle pods are pure PRT.  They need to route themselves under their own power to make sure there are always spare pods at each get-on location.  I know Dennis must be falling out of his chair reading me say the answer to this is pure PRT but it pretty much is.  The staff idea is not going to work past day two.  This is a network and the pods need to act as a cohesive flock.  Google has my son working there so I know they have the brainpower to pull off the central routing software.  Once the hardware is rolling they can add power for empties and evolve the other TriTrack features they are missing so far like air conditioning.  After they get this version operational they will be able to grow the feature set to include the entire US population not just regional places with usually good weather.

Jerry Roane 

--

[Brad Templeton]

These things are doable but I think this misses the point about what
is attractive about Shweeb, namely its immense simplicity. That
simplicity has made it easier for them to build it, to get people to
believe in it. No motors. No significant electricity. As light as
can be. Guideways as light, narrow and simple as they can be. No
computerized driving of vehicles. Runnable in a basic sense without
computers at all. No concern about headways.

A long term system will not be that simple, but don't underestimate
the power of that simplicity for getting a basic system up and
running, particularly in a flat city. They do plan some computers
but it looks like they will be distributed -- small battery powered
computers in the units to guide you where you need to go and possibly
to servo-turn whatever you turn to switch tracks (I don't think the
plan the switching to be in the track, I would hope not) and something
to make pods pause for safe merge.

I like the fact that they've punted so many problems into the future,
including automated pod return, motorization of some pods. That's a
smart feature, not a mistake. It means they can get built, and then
improve. For very little money they were able to build their New
Zealand track to show it is reliable and buildable.

I don't think Google's been duped at all. This has a serious chance
of getting up and running. Once up and running, it can be improved
with all sorts of features.

If I were the customer for this in a bicycle-loving city, you would
not have to convince me of many of the things a PRT company would ahve
to convince me of. I might wonder if the pod return can be cost
effective, but I won't wonder if you can do it.

One place I could see this working -- and an obvious first
installation unless the ADA prohibits it -- would be the Google
campus. They have grown to a lot of buildings now, and they have a
fleet of sucky bikes around the campus that people use to get between
them. There are bike trails around many of the buildings for this,
but they do have to cross city streets. I know they tried to get
permission to build a pedestrian bridge over one of the streets but
got stymied, I am not sure of the reason. Perhaps they can get this
past the city council (which is also PRT-interested) in Mountain View.

> > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Jerry Roane]

Brad

It was picked by an Internet voting experiment.  It had no thought put into the choice other than read a blurb and click a choice.  Surely you don't expect the voters to know what they have chosen other than with a 10 second look it sounded good to them.  You cannot assign more intellect to the choice than the process that got it chosen.  Michelle O says we are all fat slobs and political answers (voting) tend to link disassociated things together.  How do you  think we got gasahol in the Jimmy Carter years?  It was the farmers going broke at the same time oil was being shut off at the valve.  Political perfect answer -- gashol!!!  Sad part is gasohol was not a good idea and soon died a long and painful death.  Now they use veg oil to top off the gas mixture because the lower energy content, subsidy and tax structure not because it is the perfect gasoline.  Combining exercise and oil supply via vote is a close analogy to the gasohol experiment.  The trick is not how to live with the shortcomings of a voted in system but how to evolve it to something useful.  I think it was Einstein that thought things should be simple but not too simple to accomplish the task at hand.  

Google with extremely deep pockets has to be concerned with crashes of these aerodynamic bicycles on easy rolling surfaces.  Perhaps you have not read how fast these puppies go.  Regardless of the intent of the designers some guys are going to go full speed and plow into a parked one in their lane and the lawyers will descend from on high.  What about Shweeb do you see as protection from a 81 mph ( http://videosift.com/video/Worlds-fastest-bicycles-set-a-land-speed-record-of-81mph ) crash into not just a brick wall stop but into another bike-pod full of human cargo?  No motors, no concern about headways, --- no safety --- law suit to own Google's vast wealth.

Jerry Roane  

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

Human "motors" might be used to redistribute pods since they can be
pushed. A whole row of them (like buggies at the supermarket) can be
pushed by attendants looking for a workout (another reason for an
automated switch with a networked computer). It wouldn't be the worst
job I can think of.

F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:46 PM 9/29/2010, you wrote:
>Human "motors" might be used to redistribute pods since they can be
>pushed. A whole row of them (like buggies at the supermarket) can be
>pushed by attendants looking for a workout (another reason for an
>automated switch with a networked computer). It wouldn't be the worst
>job I can think of.

I asked the inventor some time ago if they had devised or were
working on a switch.
He said yes, but I've not had an update. I'll ask him for one.

[eph]

Synergy between "real" PRT and Shweeb?
I bet adding Shweeb to a guideway (following the Cabintaxi philosophy)
would not add to the cost very much. It would solve the ADA issue.
It would increase PRT capacity dramatically. It would reduce the
system's carbon footprint. It would provide elevators to the shweeb
stations and power for the escalator (or launcher for a flat station
design)...

F.

[Brad Templeton]

Was it picked by a voting experiment? I had not tracked the contest
too closely but I thought I read that the voters picked the
categories, and Google staff picked the winners in the categories.
Was it the other way?

On Sep 29, 2:42 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad
>
> It was picked by an Internet voting experiment.  It had no thought put into
> the choice other than read a blurb and click a choice.  Surely you don't
> expect the voters to know what they have chosen other than with a 10 second
> look it sounded good to them.  You cannot assign more intellect to the
> choice than the process that got it chosen.  Michelle O says we are all fat
> slobs and political answers (voting) tend to link disassociated things
> together.  How do you  think we got gasahol in the Jimmy Carter years?  It
> was the farmers going broke at the same time oil was being shut off at the
> valve.  Political perfect answer -- gashol!!!  Sad part is gasohol was not a
> good idea and soon died a long and painful death.  Now they use veg oil to
> top off the gas mixture because the lower energy content, subsidy and tax
> structure not because it is the perfect gasoline.  Combining exercise and
> oil supply via vote is a close analogy to the gasohol experiment.  The trick
> is not how to live with the shortcomings of a voted in system but how to
> evolve it to something useful.  I think it was Einstein that thought things
> should be simple but not too simple to accomplish the task at hand.
>
> Google with extremely deep pockets has to be concerned with crashes of these
> aerodynamic bicycles on easy rolling surfaces.  Perhaps you have not read
> how fast these puppies go.  Regardless of the intent of the designers some
> guys are going to go full speed and plow into a parked one in their lane and
> the lawyers will descend from on high.  What about Shweeb do you see as

> protection from a 81 mph (http://videosift.com/video/Worlds-fastest-bicycles-set-a-land-speed-r...

> > > > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com><transport-innovators%2Bun

[Kirston Henderson]

----------
>From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
>To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant
>Date: 29, Sep, 2010, 5:46 PM
>

> Human "motors" might be used to redistribute pods since they can be
> pushed. A whole row of them (like buggies at the supermarket) can be
> pushed by attendants looking for a workout (another reason for an
> automated switch with a networked computer). It wouldn't be the worst
> job I can think of.
>

To continue this absurd discussion, you would block traffic in the
return direction as those pods were pushed back in the direction from which
they came.

Just because a group of people at Google with little or no knowledge of
real transportation requirements or engineering voted to give someone a
million dollars for development of this contraption, does not mean that this
group should continue to waste time writing about it. I think that it would
be much more beneficial to consider more practical options.

[Jerry Roane]

Brad

I do not have any official explanation of the voting other than filtered heavily through an article but it appears guideway electric and guideway pedal power were two of the choices.  How pedals were chosen I submit either to the masses or to a sub-group of the masses still shows signs of trying to solve obesity and oil dependence in one solution.  It not a bad thing to wish the best across all problems but for this to be world changing it has to garner a market share greater than just bicycle folks.  Google is located in a climate that makes this an OK choice but the rest of the world is the issue not select micro-climates like Google headquarters.  Drive 90 miles east to 1400 miles east from Google and drop in a Shweeb and get back to me.  The great deserts of the world need transportation more than the tiny areas with bicycle weather.  

No sour grapes here.  ;-)  

Jerry Roane  

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[eph]

All PRT works this way, vehicles must be sent to stations that need
them. Why would a guy pushing 10 or more empty pods clog up the
network? Capacity for a single line according to Shweeb is about
10,000 pphpd, so there should be room for the attendants to return
without affecting the network too much. More to the point is the cost
of the attendants VS revenue or other means (motorized vehicles -
capital costs, R&D time delay, O&M costs etc...).

F.

On Sep 30, 10:58 am, "Kirston Henderson"
<Kirston.Hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
> ----------

[WALTER BREWER]

Nose to tail that's about 500 pods/mile times 20 mph.

How is a significat volume of empties going to be redistributed?

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----
From: "eph" <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

F.

--

[eph]

By a significant number of attendants?

One attendant can move (say) 10 pods 25 km in 1 hour (divide by 2 for
the return trip unless faster means are used - public transport?) or
125 pods 1 km in 1 hour. $10 per hour means each pod costs 8 cents to
move 1 km. Rounding up to 10 cent per pod per km gives each attendant
$12.50 per hour.

Like I said, I don't know if it makes financial sense.

F.

> > MegaRail� Transportation Systems

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

What this discussion is about is what gets voted for and the reasoning behind the vote selection.  It is crucial that any system to be built is understood by the voters.  What I take away from the vote is people want a simple answer to complex problems.  To hock our wares we need to understand the mechanism and to some degree play to the desire that caused this award of some bucks to the bicycle choice.    

The simplistic answer is to provide Roane Inventions invented Cubicleexercise pedals inside the car.  I spent a couple years developing this video game exercise system for a customer.  He thought he could combine office cubical workers with in-place real-time exercise equipment bolted to the desk panel of the cubicle.  It was pretty cool from a video game standpoint and it was pre-wee.  What it allowed a cubicle rat to do was exercise at their workstation with virtual rowing, virtual bicycle pedaling and steering and even a NASCAR-like race game based on the exercise equipment being pedaled or moved.  We had a full data base of the exercise you did and we tracked the total calories burned and represented them with French fries filling a Mickie Ds jumbo fry box in the corner of the screen.  It would be super easy to add this product to any real dual mode or pure PRT system that is more advanced than the simplest of the systems that have not widened their vision to the full population of the world.  The energy dissipated by this system could easily be put to use lighting the cabin if human output is a voting trigger point.  Human exercise is about like running a single light bulb.  Those who think they can loose weight by exercise alone are delusional or marathon junkies.  The solution for weight is eat less period.  We eat too much and we get fat.  The French fry meter in this product was to illustrate to the user who just rowed across a virtual lake chasing ducks that they still have not worked off a single small bag of frys from Mickey Ds.  Riding a bicycle on a guideway with an aerodynamic shape will be even less working off of the fries.  The dual goal of exercise to make up for the food intake by pedaling from the Google parking lot to the Google building will not in any practical way make up for eating on the Google free restaurants.  It is certainly a false hope and this comes from a guy who spent a considerable amount of time developing a bicycle exercise virtual game with computer output to simulate up hill pedaling and downhill pedaling.  The physics of the virtual bicycle was very advanced and the bike would lean and slide based on our measurements of our bicycles in real life mixed with the physics model of a bicycle.  Bottom line his product has not made him any money but it does have a patent and it allows people trapped in cubes to exercise while still doing most work tasks.  All way too commercial for this site but since it made no money I don't feel too bad talking about it as a market failure.  What it did do was play to the desire that if you buy something you will get healthy and thin.  Once purchased it can sit in the corner never to be touched again.  

Point being we can add this virtual pedaling game to any dual mode or PRT system for the times when it is traveling on its guideway.  Rather than push reading a book while auto-driving I suggest we push the idea that you can operate a Wee or other exercise game while riding to capture what we learned from Google's million.  

With a set of pedals mounted to the floor of your pod you can simulate Shweeb in a virtual sense.  The value of truth would easily be displayed after your trip.  You pedaled enough to light a light bulb for 5 minutes and that negates two short fried potatoes.  Equated a different way a 26 mile race uses the calorie content of the previous day's food intake.  Since the marathon runner can only eat a stomach full at a time food is very energy dense so exercise will be very difficult to make up for over eating.  Just waiting for the epoxy to set and killin' some time about the desires of group think. Time to do the next batch!

Jerry Roane

--

[Kirston Henderson]

----------
From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant
Date: 30, Sep, 2010, 11:53 AM

Kirston

What this discussion is about is what gets voted for and the reasoning behind the vote selection.  It is crucial that any system to be built is understood by the voters.  What I take away from the vote is people want a simple answer to complex problems.  To hock our wares we need to understand the mechanism and to some degree play to the desire that caused this award of some bucks to the bicycle choice.    

The simplistic answer is to provide Roane Inventions invented Cubicleexercise pedals inside the car.  I spent a couple years developing this video game exercise system for a customer.  He thought he could combine office cubical workers with in-place real-time exercise equipment bolted to the desk panel of the cubicle.  It was pretty cool from a video game standpoint and it was pre-wee.  What it allowed a cubicle rat to do was exercise at their workstation with virtual rowing, virtual bicycle pedaling and steering and even a NASCAR-like race game based on the exercise equipment being pedaled or moved.  We had a full data base of the exercise you did and we tracked the total calories burned and represented them with French fries filling a Mickie Ds jumbo fry box in the corner of the screen.  It would be super easy to add this product to any real dual mode or pure PRT system that is more advanced than the simplest of the systems that have not widened their vision to the full population of the world.  The energy dissipated by this system could easily be put to use lighting the cabin if human output is a voting trigger point.  Human exercise is about like running a single light bulb.  Those who think they can loose weight by exercise alone are delusional or marathon junkies.  The solution for weight is eat less period.  We eat too much and we get fat.  The French fry meter in this product was to illustrate to the user who just rowed across a virtual lake chasing ducks that they still have not worked off a single small bag of frys from Mickey Ds.  Riding a bicycle on a guideway with an aerodynamic shape will be even less working off of the fries.  The dual goal of exercise to make up for the food intake by pedaling from the Google parking lot to the Google building will not in any practical way make up for eating on the Google free restaurants.  It is certainly a false hope and this comes from a guy who spent a considerable amount of time developing a bicycle exercise virtual game with computer output to simulate up hill pedaling and downhill pedaling.  The physics of the virtual bicycle was very advanced and the bike would lean and slide based on our measurements of our bicycles in real life mixed with the physics model of a bicycle.  Bottom line his product has not made him any money but it does have a patent and it allows people trapped in cubes to exercise while still doing most work tasks.  All way too commercial for this site but since it made no money I don't feel too bad talking about it as a market failure.  What it did do was play to the desire that if you buy something you will get healthy and thin.  Once purchased it can sit in the corner never to be touched again.  

Jerry,

    I think that a set of pedals installed at my workstation here at the office would cause the tops of my knees to hit the underside of the keyboard shelf.  Good luck with the next batch of epoxy.

[Brad Templeton]

You can't be serious. This newsgroup is called transport
innovations. It's not just for discussing Megarail-like systems.


Anyway, as I read the contest principles they took in 150,000
suggestions, narrowed them to 16 areas, and had voters pick 5 of the
areas. Then the Google 10^100 team decided how to allocate the 10M to
those 5 areas. Shweeb only got 1M (and not a grant since it is a for-
profit) so it wasn't the most favoured of the 5 projects the Google
team picked.

But I can assure you that the folks at Google are very aware of
conventional PRT systems, and that Larry Page is quite interested in
PRT (and robocars and various other innovative transit systems.)

I have not yet learned the direct reasons Shweeb was picked, but I am
confident it was not because other PRTs were not considered. One
reason I can imagine is that Shweeb can probably start something with
$1M, and other PRT systems, even established ones like ULtra, can't do
that. While I did not know them before this (and it seems most
others here also did not) I remain impressed with the simplicity of
their plan. There is much more work to be added to it, but that's
the point -- they can add it later. The core thing they need to get a
system to work is a switch so you can divert to the offline
stations. Many people here have designed switches for suspended
systems and it's not easy but neither is it intractable.





On Sep 30, 7:58 am, "Kirston Henderson"

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

Yes the pedals drop down on a pivot and your knees are just in front of your keyboard.  You can't easily type while pedaling but you can wait on telephone hold while entertaining yourself and working off the fry.  Right now it uses a V8 engine oil pump as the resistance mechanism because they are mass produced in large volume and they cost $12 retail.  We pinch off the oil flow to get more or less resistance or we change the oil viscosity out to get other ranges of resistance.  The rowing arms tuck under the desk at knee level and the up and down levers clip up also getting four handles and a set of pedals under the desk is a tiny bit tricky but it has been done.  The rowing uses the shock absorber for the TriTrack front suspension.  It is a knock-off of the Ford Model T or A (I forget) shock absorber that sloshes oil past a paddle inside a chamber.  The oil viscosity is how you adjust the rowing range and a needle valve in a bypass tube is how you adjust the rowing or curling resistance in real time.  Again it has a patent and was built.  The financial failure was for other reasons.  My shins are long also.  

Jerry Roane 

[Jerry Roane]

Brad

We all knew about Shweeb.  It has been on this discussion long before you found us so it predates your T-list activity.  I used to get a lot of web hits from their location back then.  You are right 1 million dollars can build a bicycle.  

You are making assumptions about the effort put into the decision.  Best to stick to what is known.  One of the final ideas on their list besides pedal power was an amalgam of guideway electric enabled systems.

If you read posts it is MegaWay so either you are attempting to insult Kirston or you intentionally do not digest what you read.  It would work better to be more up front.  

Why can't they unhook the bikes and ride them to work?  

Jerry Roane 

[WALTER BREWER]

Shades of Dual Mode!

 

Why can't they unhook the bikes and ride them to work?  

 

Walt Brewer

[Palle R Jensen]

This is exactly what I offer in my new BikeMetro system (patent pending)

See attached

 

Palle R Jensen

[WALTER BREWER]

HOORAY for the ground level loading!

 

But how are they elevated to the mainline?

 

Walt Brewer

----- Original Message -----

From: Palle R Jensen

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

--

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:38 PM 9/30/2010, you wrote:
>This is exactly what I offer in my new BikeMetro system (patent pending)
>See attached

Horray for you! Hope you get your patent.

[Brad Templeton]

He signs his messages "Megarail" so there is no intent of insult in
using that term instead of Megaway. Anyway, while I do not intend to
insult any person, I find posts that say "we should not be wasting our
time writing about" such things to be far from apropos.

This project is interesting, and it's getting money. Saying that the
people investing the money are fools is a pretty poor argument against
discussing the questions.

> > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[Jerry Schneider]

Here are some comments about Shweeb that are not
supportive - because "we want high speed rail"

<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/09/google-invests-in-bike-powered-pod-transport-why/&ct=ga&cad=:s1:f2:v0:d1:i0:lt:e0:p0:t1285881762:&cd=1KHWMNnK0BA&usg=AFQjCNHlEQAK8wkNm0n3HrbwXGUMUAnmFw>Google
Invests in Bike Powered Pod Transport… Why?
Triple Pundit
Group rapid transit and personal rapid transit
have both tried to take advantage of the monorail
idea before, with little success and great cost. ...

[Palle R Jensen]

You can see it in this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLtYmq2_92I

 

Palle R Jensen

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3167 - Release Date: 09/29/10 19:50:00

[WALTER BREWER]

Thanks. Sorry I should have seen you attachment to your first message.

 

Is this human powered?

[Jerry Roane]

Palle

That is kind of cute.  A skateboard for a bicycle.  One suggestion for you video would be to add an electric wheel chair to the show so the ADA questions are avoided.  You might also consider showing the exit from the ride whether you back out or ride forward to exit the pod.  

Jerry Roane 

[Kirston Henderson]

----------
>From: Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com>
>To: transport-innovators <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
>Subject: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant
>Date: 30, Sep, 2010, 4:27 PM
>

> He signs his messages "Megarail" so there is no intent of insult in
> using that term instead of Megaway. Anyway, while I do not intend to
> insult any person, I find posts that say "we should not be wasting our
> time writing about" such things to be far from apropos.
>

Brad,

That is because the name of our company is MegaRail® Transportation
Systems, Inc. Unfortunately, we used "rail" in our name because our
guideway resembled a pair of small monorails in appearance. At least for
now, we must continue with that name, although none of or systems have ever
used a "rail."

All of our systems operate with rubber tires that run on narrow
stain-less steel, enclosed, elevated roadway wheelways with the roadway
paths for each set of wheels being only slightly wider than the tires that
operate on them.

Our elevated "roads" are really elevated super-freeways intended to
serve in precisely the same manner as freeways with the addition of
electrical power bus bars and automatic steering reference bars. Hence the
new name, "Superways " which is a contraction of "super freeway" is now
being used to more precisely define the fixed infrastructure portions of our
systems.

To be consistent with the above, our systems have also been re-named as
"MegaWay instead of "MegaRail" and "MicroWay " instead of "MicroRail ."
The vehicles in both systems operate on the elevated SuperWays. You can
expect to see an updated version of our web site appearing sometime within
the next two months and all of our future references to and descriptions of
our systems will reflect this change.

We recently realized that our miss-naming of our systems was having a
very adverse effect on our marketing after a high official of a state
transportation department told us that he liked our approach, but their DoT
was prohibited by the state constitution from spending tax funds on anything
but roads and bridges. We then found that the DoT of another state that we
have been marketing to had the same problem. Now, we have to make these DoT
officials realize that the fixed infrastructure of our systems are really
only a special type of elevated "road" for "bridge."

I must admit that the change that I have described above has been
painful because of the need to purge the "rail" from all of our names and
and marketing material. We may eventually need to even change our company
name. Please excuse any confusion.

[Jerry Roane]

Kirston

That official was ignorant of the laws in the state of Texas.  He needs to update his eduction.  Txdot is authorized to build roads rail and guideway that interfaces with roads and rail.  Perhaps you need to visit that man again if he still works at TxDot after the reorg.  The sunset commission recommended sweeping changes at TxDot and they were threatening shutting down the whole thing.  Too much power given to TxDot with no oversight was noticed by the sunset commission and the reorg was to fix that problem of no parents in the room.  CAMPO also has a new head as well as the CapMetro here in Austin has a new head.  Three headless organizations as of late.  (or new heads depending on how you look at it.)  

Jerry Roane 

[Brad Templeton]

Sounds like you might have done even better to call it megaroad or
guideroad or something like that.

But truth be known, other than this strange Texas reaction, the name
is the least important thing about a new transportation system. I
know you may take this as an unfairly harsh critique, but when I see
people who are not yet shipping product doing a lot of focus on names,
and constantly putting ® and "TM" after their words, it makes me think
less of them, makes me think their focus is not in the right place.
There are some people who do this because they have gotten advice from
bad trademark lawyers, who told them they were at risk of losing their
marks if they didn't do this all the time, if they didn't send out
threatening letters to anybody who didn't properly respect their
mark. The truth is, trademark lawyers tell people that because they
don't know trademark law very well (to be charitable) or because it
causes more billing of hours by trademark lawyers to write the letters
(to be uncharitable.)

You gain a trademark automatically in the USA by using it in a non-
generic way, as an adjective, in commerce. Registration is something
to do later when you have spare money. It's much harder to lose a
trademark than most people imagine; you have to allow widespread
generic use of your mark. This is something brand new companies never
have to worry about.

On Oct 1, 3:25 pm, "Kirston Henderson"
<Kirston.Hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
> ----------

[Kirston Henderson]

On Oct 1, 2010, at 10:46 PM, Brad Templeton wrote:

> Sounds like you might have done even better to call it megaroad or
> guideroad or something like that.
>
> But truth be known, other than this strange Texas reaction, the name
> is the least important thing about a new transportation system. I
> know you may take this as an unfairly harsh critique, but when I see
> people who are not yet shipping product doing a lot of focus on names,
> and constantly putting ® and "TM" after their words, it makes me think
> less of them, makes me think their focus is not in the right place.
> There are some people who do this because they have gotten advice from
> bad trademark lawyers, who told them they were at risk of losing their
> marks if they didn't do this all the time, if they didn't send out
> threatening letters to anybody who didn't properly respect their
> mark. The truth is, trademark lawyers tell people that because they
> don't know trademark law very well (to be charitable) or because it
> causes more billing of hours by trademark lawyers to write the letters
> (to be uncharitable.)
>
> You gain a trademark automatically in the USA by using it in a non-
> generic way, as an adjective, in commerce. Registration is something
> to do later when you have spare money. It's much harder to lose a
> trademark than most people imagine; you have to allow widespread
> generic use of your mark. This is something brand new companies never
> have to worry about.

It is important for a number of reasons to obtain and maintain
trademark registrations. Trademarks become identifiers of your
product, and as such, have significant value. In order to obtain
registration of a trademark by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
you must first use in in marketing your product in interstate
commerce. Under the laws governing the use of trademarks, the company
having rights to the trademark must use the ® or ™ after the first use
of the trademark in any written publication or correspondence, but it
need be used only the first time. If you think that trademarks are
not considered important, just try manufacturing a new car and calling
it a Ford, GM, etc.

I'm sorry that you don't like our new names, but we have selected
them after a lot of study work and are not likely to change them
without some very good reason. As I said before, the task of renaming
our products was a major and somewhat costly task for us that we did
not take on without valid reasons. The most important reason was the
tendency of many of our most important target customers to dismiss our
systems as something that they could not use under the existent laws
because the names implied that they were "rail" systems.

By the way, you can lose a valuable trademark by failing to notify
those who attempt to use it and allowing it to become "generic" for
the class of product.

Kirston Henderson

[Kirston Henderson]

On Oct 1, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Jerry Roane wrote:

Kirston

That official was ignorant of the laws in the state of Texas.  He needs to update his eduction.  Txdot is authorized to build roads rail and guideway that interfaces with roads and rail.  Perhaps you need to visit that man again if he still works at TxDot after the reorg.  The sunset commission recommended sweeping changes at TxDot and they were threatening shutting down the whole thing.  Too much power given to TxDot with no oversight was noticed by the sunset commission and the reorg was to fix that problem of no parents in the room.  CAMPO also has a new head as well as the CapMetro here in Austin has a new head.  Three headless organizations as of late.  (or new heads depending on how you look at it.)  

Jerry,

TXDoT is still in business although I understand that the Transportation Commission has been expanded in size and the commissioner that I spoke with last is still there.  I do not intend to get into any sort of unnecessary argument with him or any of the friends that I have made at TXDoT headquarters.   I am only going to be sure that they understand the true nature of our systems and that they are allowed by the constitution.

Kirston

[Palle R Jensen]

Jerry

 

I agree that the exit should be shown also. It is meant to be forward exit.

I have it on another animation, but the editing was done very fast, so I forgot it :-)

 

4 students at the Copenhagen University-College of Engineering have dimensioned the BikeMetro to be able to carry also 3-wheeled bikes etc. They made an excellent project and all got an A.

 

It is unclear if it will be considered as Public Transport.

In Denmark we do a lot to promote bicycles, so maybe special rules will be defined.

It has created strong interest from officials: Traffic Mayor of Copenhagen, director of the Bicycle Unions in Europe etc.

 

Palle R Jensen

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry Roane

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 4:42 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] BikeMetro

[Palle R Jensen]

Walt

 

It is not human powered.

If somebody want to add this feature - OK with me :-)

 

Palle R Jensen

Version: 8.5.445 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3169 - Release Date: 09/30/10 18:34:00

[Jerry Roane]

Palle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZaHtnKbswQ

Human powered looks like it might be hot and sweaty.  ;-)  

There is something strangely appealing about being all powerful (narcissistic tendencies) in body and mind in may personalities.  You don't need anything beyond yourself and you are self sufficient in all things body, mind, transport and spirit.  Of course if the captain wants to water ski you are in trouble.  (old joke)  Reality-land human powered is overrated.  It does require the vehicles be energy efficient and in that sense it is a good thing.  I could see crosswalks for bikes being a simple Shweeb overpass at each heavily traveled road.  If Shweeb could fit their bikes with a fast connect and fast disconnect then 3D cities could be born quickly.  Bicycles taking the layer one and layer two.  RUF or other dual mode system taking layer 3 and layer 4 in the urban sky.  The death rate now per mile commuted by bicycle is so high no one will publish just how bad it is.  This lack of public information must be intentional by the bicycle lobby.  If an overhead connect disconnect system solved the at-grade crossing problem in say 80% of dangerous crossings then the death rate could possibly come down to the relative danger of car fatality rates.  I could see your bicycle scooper working for this application also if the load/unload time was quick enough.  You might have those students if they are still around work up a simple single road crossing version.  Something so simple as an overpass using guideway can help push the city form to 3D.

Jerry Roane 

[Brad Templeton]

It is indeed important to come up with good names, and to take some
basic steps to protect them, but I recommend against paying the costs
of registration until after you have the spare money to do so. Just
using a mark in interstate commerce establishes it as yours.
Registration is extra strength, and useful in litigation, but if you
think you are going to worry about litigation early on you're picking
the wrong names.

Lawyers will give you legal advice, but rarely take business advice
from them, especially about "how much lawyering do I need?" If they
tell a startup that is not flush with cash to register all their
trademarks, they're drumming up business for themselves, not you.

You've misunderstood me to say that trademarks are not important. I
don't say that at all. I've owned many in my day, and I have had
registered trademarks too. I'm just saying that spending money on
them is very low on a startup's priority list. I also personally
think that breaking up the flow of your communications to insert (R)
and (TM) after everything does more harm than good.

No, you can't easily lose a valuable trademark by failing to notify
those who attempt to use it. This is a common misconception that is
propagated by trademark lawyers who like to bill large fees to send
threatening letters to everybody they can find. Trademarks have been
lost to widespread generic usage, but such cases are rare, and as I
said, require fairly widespread generic usage (meaning the products
are themselves wildly successful) and a pattern of non-protection, not
a single missed opportunity to protect here and there.

Frankly, there are far worse problems to have than people using your
product name so much they genericise it! And the way around that is
to gently correct it when it starts to happen.

Similar advice applies to patents. Recent studies have shown that
outside of a few key industries like pharma, the cost of patents
exceeds the benefit of patents overall! Everybody is sure that their
invention is clearly the exception. And 95% of people are above
average drivers, too!

On Oct 1, 11:10 pm, Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
wrote:

[Jerry Schneider]

>Shweeb's Google Supported Monorail Myth Busted
>September 28th, 2010 3:36 PM | by Luca Oprea.
>
>[]
>
>It's been two years since Google announced the 10^100 project, which
>was meant to pair up millions in funds with world-changing ideas.
>This Friday saw five winners being announced, and that is five out
>of 150,000 submissions.
>
>The strange thing is that among the five is a proposition by a
>company named Shweeb, for a monorail transport system powered by
>people pedaling away on recumbent bicycle gears, suspended in little
>single person sized clear capsules suspended several stories above
>the city below.
>
>But isn't the advantage of bicycles the ease with which you can
>maneuver to your destination? Any destination. And it's a personal
>thing, taking a load off the public transport system, whereas the
>Shweeb idea is bound to require a small army of attendants helping
>people get in and out of the capsules.
>
>As for the capsules themselves, you think it'll take how many days
>for these things to acquire the unholy stench of sun-boiled sweat?
>Not days, hours. The first few rides and it's over and done with -
>not a chance anyone is getting in after that.
>
>And the strictly mathematical usefulness of the system? If one gear
>breaks, if one ankle gets sprained, the whole things grinds down to
>a halt. Because unlike bicycles, monorails pods can't pass each
>other. If one fails, they're all stuck.
>
>Luckily, the other winners are nonprofit organizations for
>government transparency, free worldwide online education,
>mathematics and student-driven robotics.
>
>Read more:
><http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail-myth-busted.html#ixzz10veiI3ac>http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail-myth-busted.html#ixzz10veiI3ac
>
>Source:
><http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail-myth-busted.html>http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail-myth-busted.<http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail-myth-busted.html>html

[Brad Templeton]

Some people think it's a bad PRT, others think it's a bad bike.

One thought I had for Shweeb that might simplify a lot of problems
would be a small motorized "push pod." Using the fact that they have
these shock absorbers the push pods could cruise the track and push
anybody going below a minimum speed. They might bill you for the push
-- don't want the charge, just pedal faster. No extra charge for the
disabled. The push pods could also push a big line of empty pods to
stations that need them, at first guided by a staffer in the first
one, eventually automatically.

Push pods could also deal with climbing hills. As you approach a hill
a push pod enters the track from a merge behind you and moves up to
dock with you and give you a lift up the hill. Then it switches off
and glides back down the hill, regeneratively breaking and then
stopping at its charging point to wait in line to push the next
vehicle.

This way you only have as many motors and batteries as you need, you
don't add any extra weight or cost to the pods themselves.

> ><http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail...>http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail...
>
> >Source:
> ><http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail...>http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail....<http://www.gadgetreview.com/2010/09/shweebs-google-supported-monorail...>html
>
>
>
>  3897a7f7.jpg
> 350KViewDownload

[Eric Baumgartner]

Why would they not just put a battery and motor in it?

 

http://www.edmontonprt.com/

 

Eric Baumgartner
eri...@shaw.ca

----- Original Message -----

From: Jerry Schneider

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:14 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant

>Shweeb's Google Supported Monorail Myth Busted
>September 28th, 2010 3:36 PM | by Luca Oprea.

---

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3176 - Release Date: 10/04/10 00:35:00

[Brad Templeton]

The idea of a push pod (with battery and motor) is you don't carry
around a battery and motor (which have weight and cost and recharging
needs) and only use the services of a mobile one when you actually
need one, which on the Shweeb is intended to be a very small part of
the time. Instead of putting motors into every pod to allow it to
return empty, have a single push-pod (which could either be a regular
motorized pod or more simply a standalone pod that is very small and
is nothing but battery and motor) which can push 20 pods down the
track. Instead of a motor to do the odd upslope, have a push pod
live at the upslope and push vehicles up all day.

This way you need perhaps 1/10th of the batteries and motors (huge
savings in cost) and the pods are much lighter (thus easier to pedal.)

On Oct 4, 6:24 pm, "Eric Baumgartner" <eri...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Why would they not just put a battery and motor in it?
>
> http://www.edmontonprt.com/
>
> Eric Baumgartner
> eri...@shaw.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Jerry Schneider
>   To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 2:14 PM
>   Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant
>
>   >Shweeb's Google Supported Monorail Myth Busted
>   >September 28th, 2010 3:36 PM | by Luca Oprea.
>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

[Michael Weidler]

Somehow I can't see the average commuter using this to go 30 miles to work. --- On Sat, 9/25/10, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote: From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: Re: [t-i] Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant To: transport-...@googlegroups.com Date: Saturday, September 25, 2010, 8:20 AM At 11:50 PM 9/24/2010, you wrote: >Looks like the first real PRT (ie. with more than 3 stops) to be built >may be pedal powered.   Google just decided they are giving their $1M >transit innovation grant to Shweeb, which says they will be building a >system with it. > >Anybody know the cost per km that Shweeb is estimating?  Because their >track and vehicles are the lightest around I presume they are hoping >for something decent. Ask them: http://shweeb.com/ - Jerry Schneider -      Innovative Transportation Technologies        http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Jack Slade]

Brad, any way I look at this, it still seems to be a way to modify PRT so that bicycle riders can travel for free. It will cost as much, or more than PRT as I have proposed it ( and others as well), and will certainly be more intrusive if you talk about tracks wide enough to permit passing. How about looking in bedroom windows...is that OK with you now, with people who can stop and take pictures if they feel like it? Last week this was one of your objections to PRT, remember?

People with bikes or wheelchairs can ride PRT, at 10 cents per mile like everybody else. Isn't that just what they are trying to avoid, paying for ANYTHING? How can anybody afford to build anything for anybody who wants a free ride? I certainly would not touch it. If I had money to give away I would probably give it to people who either need it or deserve it.

Jack Slade

--- On Mon, 10/4/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

[Michael Weidler]

5kph*.6=3mph. I suggest the next time you get near a treadmill you set it for 3mph. This is a rather brisk pace. 2 mph is still a pretty good stride and most people walk any significant distance at an even slower rate. Users putting out this amount of energy will definitely arrive sweaty.

--- On Sun, 9/26/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

Date: Sunday, September 26, 2010, 1:39 AM Shweeb's web site claims that the energy to keep their unit going at 25kph is similar to that of walking at 5kph, which means -- if the claim is true -- that people would not be arriving at work all sweaty and tired, and that even low fitness people could do it.   And even people who can't use their legs could probably use it with their arms though perhaps not quite as easily.     I suspect that by classifying it as a bicycle way they might avoid ADA (if they do it in the USA at all) since people who make bicycles don't have to make them ADA compliant. I suspect it will mostly be for flat cities, or limited hills, though they have designed a motor that pulls slower vehicles up the hills, I don't imagine they plan to do that to the level a mountain city would require.  (On the other hand you could go very far with just a few uphill escalators and people going up and then down to get to destinations, the going down requiring no effort.   I could imagine a system where every trip involves first going up the hill (being pulled up) and coasting quickly to your destination, the way a roller coaster works. It's not going to replace a city's transit system (though many of the world's cities have very large amounts of cycle commuting, and it might do a lot in those places or places that can become like them) but it would demonstrate some PRT concepts that others have not had luck in selling, and so I remain disturbed at people thinking it's something bad for PRT. As to whether you can watch a video, I doubt they plan that, but it does seem like it would be possible on a long bike commute on a major route that does not require lane changes.    I could see a system where you got in a pod, pedaled until you joined a train, and then just pedaled gently for 20 minutes (a trip of about 8km) while reading or watching video.   Then back to being in control for the final leg to your destination station. This could be enabled by a computer system that tells you when you need to watch, ie. transfer coming up, other vehicle coming up ahead or behind.   Even telling you when to lean left or right by audio clues rather than visual ones.  Such a system would be very easy to build.     I watch TV while on my exercise bike all the time, it's perfectly workable.   I could even see some people working on the computer.  If the commute involves a lot of line changes it would be harder, but with an audio alert system even that's doable. On Sep 25, 9:40 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote: > Biggest flaw is simply that the percentage of people willing to use bicycles > to go to and fro is too small to justify the infrastructure cost even if > less than PRT infrastructure. > > As to Brad's comments that it is a test bed for PRT systems - nonsense. It > lacks too many PRT characteristics. > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Benke" <bengt.gustafs...@beamways.com> > Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 2:27 PM > To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>

> Subject: [t-i] Re: Shweeb human-powered PRT gets a $1M Google Grant >

> > I would be hard pressed to see the public accepting this system. One > > thing is that the fit would like to go faster, but get held up by > > slower people ahead. The empty vehicle management does not seem at all > > realistic, as Chris points out. Another issue would be the bumpers. > > They claim a 1.2m deceleration stretch from 25 km/h is a mild bump, > > but my calculator says  it is 2g! I'd call that a project killer > > (although the person involved would probably live). > > > As for Brad's comment I think that a deficient system like this being > > realized does not help PRT gain acceptance. I must add that the no- > > video remark of his would apply to all riders, as they wold have to > > mind their next diverge where they have to pull the lever left or > > right, there is no guarantee that succeding vehicles are aimed at the > > same destination as the leader, is there? > > > Apart from  this I think the manual pedaling has a clear advantage as > > it feels like forming trains would be safe, thus creating a higgh > > capacity. If my 2g number is accurate (please check, it's getting late > > here), it is however not safe at all. > > > When it comes to fossil energy use, wasn't it Brad himself who > > calculated the oil use for walking and biking and found it > > surprisingly high? Granted, these would use less than biking, but far > > from zero, as claimed. > > > The vehicles being so easy to pedal leads to my final remark: It would > > have to be a very high pedal rate for 25 km/h if not even a fit > > athlete would be able to go say 35 km/h. As the a is squared compared > > to the v this would mean almost a 4g crash into the unsuspecting > > grandmother taking a brake in front... > > > Apart from this I can say that myself and Palle and maybe more on this > > list with realistic suggestions entered into the competition were > > disappointed to be scrapped in favor of such a toy project. > > > On 25 Sep, 23:11, Jay Andress <andress....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I also think that this is a positive development for PRT. It doesn't take > >> much imagination to add a motor to the vehicles. As a matter of fact > >> think > >> ADA. There actually may be a requirement that there be motors/ADA > >> compliant > >> units. Actually this whole system violates ADA.  Come to think about it > >> this > >> appears to be a major oversight by Google...how about that I'M SMARTER > >> THAN > >> GOOGLE!!!!! > > >>                                                      Jay Andress > > >> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Brad Templeton <brad...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> > I gotta say I'm surprised at the negatives.  Somebody gets some > >> > success with a system and the reaction is "It's doesn't match my > >> > vision" and to be critical. > > >> > Shweeb contains a large number of elements of most visions of PRT. > >> > Inexpensive overhead guideways, Personal transit (faster than typical > >> > public transit if their claim that unfit individuals can maintain > >> > 25kph is true) and offline stations, pod bikes etc.   This is an > >> > opportunity to expose the public to those concepts and test them out > >> > in various ways.   A chance to learn about public reaction to > >> > guideways and other elements of the system.  A chance to learn if > >> > super-lightweight track can indeed be built and installed at low > >> > prices. > > >> > Shweeb seems to offer a number of interesting "gateway" concepts that > >> > will be very interesting to see used in practice.   Since the vehicles > >> > are the lightest possible in a PRT system, the track can be the > >> > smallest with the least visual intrusion.  Tremendous lessons will be > >> > learned from this.   The public will perceive the system as the > >> > greenest possible system as well (though in practice human energy is > >> > not that CO2 efficient because of the large amount of fossil fuel used > >> > in our food production.)   The question of whether computers can > >> > safely manage the vehicles with short headways is eliminated, and yet > >> > it seems that people will be possibly be able to do things like read > >> > or even watch portable video devices on the longer stretches, since > >> > they claim collisions at track speed will be OK, though that's yet to > >> > be seen.   They expect people to form trains where the people in the > >> > back will certainly be able to watch their videos, it's more debatable > >> > about the person in front.  Attention is needed for changing lines and > >> > stops. > > >> > I do think that they might be wise to develop a small electric module > >> > for use in empty vehicle returns, though their plan of using human > >> > staff at first is simple and elegant, if perhaps not scalable.  They > >> > require no power infrastructure on the guideways except perhaps to > >> > light them which can be done with low voltage and no brushes, which is > >> > again vastly simpler and safer than systems which must send hundreds > >> > of kw down lines and into vehicles. > > >> > I don't know if it's a long term solution but I think it's very > >> > interesting as an intermediate concept.   Where it does well and where > >> > it doesn't will be very interesting results for all to learn from. > >> > Can it divert a lot of traffic from the roads?    I think it actually > >> > could do that in certain situations, such as a high traffic corridor > >> > at rush hour, if they add a very small amount of automation and > >> > motorization for empty vehicle moves.   To keep batteries small, you > >> > would have one push vehicle push a train of empty pods down the track > >> > in the anticommute direction, and a mechanism to then deposit the > >> > number of needed pods at stations.   Possibly the main pusher could > >> > just split N cars off onto the siding and another machine (that lives > >> > at the station and possibly can hook onto vehicles from above or below > >> > for individual control) could put them in their proper place in the > >> > station.   I see a few other methods but this is a 2nd stage concept.

> > >> > -- > >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > >> > Groups > >> > "transport-innovators" group. > >> > To post to this group, send email to > >> > transport-...@googlegroups.com > >> > . > >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >> > transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >> > . > >> > For more options, visit this group at

> >> >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.-D lj citerad > >> >text - > > >> - Visa citerad text -

> > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "transport-innovators" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > > transport-...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group. To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.