Fwd: [transport-policy] News from the Transportation Front No. 10
Jerry Schneider
increase" to me and a way to keep the highway gang employed
fixing up old and building a few new facilities.
-----------------------------------------------------
>[]
>
>
>February 12, 2007
>
>NEWS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION FRONT NO. 10
>An occasional news roundup covering developments
>of more than casual interest to the
>transportation community (formerly known as "Beyond the Tipping Point")
>
>Joining in the Debate about Transportation Financing
>
>The National Academy of Public Administration
>(NAPA) has joined a growing circle of
>Washington-based think tanks, public interest
>groups and trade associations in the debate
>about the future of transportation financing.
>Its Intergovernmental Forum on Transportation
>Finance has convened a group of experts to help
>develop "workable strategies to finance the
>future transportation needs of this country."
>Chaired by Mortimer Downey, former Deputy
>Secretary of Transportation in the Clinton
>Administration, the Forum will hold a series of
>public meetings and conclude with a final report
>toward the end of the year. The Academy is a
>non-profit organization whose charter is to
>improve government effectiveness. Its Forum
>members include the major public interest groups
>such as the National Governors Association, the
>National League of Cities and the National
>Association of Counties, thus giving those
>groups a voice in the unfolding public dialogue
>about the future of surface transportation financing.
>
>In the meantime, the Blue Ribbon Panel of
>Transportation Experts appointed by the National
>Surface Transportation Policy Commission met for
>an orientation briefing on February 6-7.
>Described by U.S. DOT Secretary Mary Peters in
>her opening remarks as "an amazingly talented
>group of people" the Panel will assist the
>Commission and Commission staff in reviewing a
>collection of briefing papers, commenting on
>special scenarios of interest to the
>Commissioners and helping to develop novel ideas
>and strategies for reshaping and expanding the
>Nation’s transportation system. (Note: your
>editor serves as a member of the Blue Ribbon Panel)
>
>The White House Transportation Legislative Leadership Summit
>
>The Administration continued its efforts to
>communicate its message at a high-level,
>invitation-only "White House Transportation
>Legislative Leadership Summit" on February 9.
>Held in the ornate Indian Treaty Room of the Old
>Executive Offices Building, the conference
>featured a group of distinguished speakers
>testifying about creative new approaches adopted
>in their jurisdictions to solve fiscal and
>congestion problems. Invited to the Summit were
>chairmen and ranking members of all state
>legislative transportation committees. A total
>of 52 state lawmakers attended the Summit,
>including chairmen and ranking members of house
>and senate committees from 28 states.
>
>Conference speakers included Governors Mitch
>Daniels and Ed Rendell who are pioneering new
>approaches to public asset management involving
>long-term lease concessions (see below); Mike
>Krusee, chairman of the House Transportation
>Committee in the Texas legislature and author of
>the landmark legislation that made toll revenues
>and public-private partnerships the foundation
>of the state’s transportation financing policy;
>Doug MacDonald, Transportation Secretary of the
>State of Washington, a jurisdiction that has
>adopted a comprehensive statewide tolling
>policy; Kathy Wylde, President of the
>Partnership for New York City, a business
>leadership group that is advocating cordon-type
>congestion pricing for Midtown and Lower
>Manhattan; three private individuals whose
>companies are involved in innovative
>infrastructure financing (James Smith of Merrill
>Lynch, Murray Bleach of Macquarie Infrastructure
>Group and Jack Finn, HNTB); and Robert Poole,
>Transportation Director of the Reason
>Foundation, a well-known advocate and expert on
>privatization, and co-author (with your editor)
>of the 2003 report that popularized the concept
>of high-occupancy/BRT toll lanes. The
>Administration team included U.S. DOT’s
>Secretary Mary Peters who delivered the keynote
>address, Deputy Secretary Maria Cino, and
>Assistant Secretary for Policy, Tyler Duvall.
>The White House was represented by Maggie Grant,
>Director of the White House Office of
>Intergovernmental Affairs and Karl Zinsmeister,
>the President’s Domestic Policy Advisor.
>
>The Administration’s intent behind this
>initiative is clear. Facing the end of its term
>of office in less than two years, it wishes to
>leave behind a permanent legacy of the concepts,
>ideas and new strategies which it believes offer
>promising solutions to the transportation
>problems facing the nation. Viewed in this
>light, the Administration’s focus on state
>legislators and the changing federal role is not
>surprising. Many of the proposed initiatives the
>Administration has in mind will require new
>legislation and action at state level. This
>includes such actions as developing new
>financing options and local revenue sources to
>supplement federal gas tax revenue; attracting
>private investment capital and enlisting the
>private sector in construction, operation and
>financing of transportation facilities; and
>applying ITS technology and the concept of
>variable pricing to aggressively attack the
>problem of traffic congestion and improve
>highway system performance. The White House
>conference could be seen as an effort to reach
>out and communicate its vision to policymakers
>beyond Washington in the hope that they will
>embrace the Department’s ideas, enshrine them in
>state legislation, programs and practices and
>influence the shaping of the next reauthorization.
>
>There are indications that the Administration’s
>vision is resonating with state and local
>decisionmakers and has broad bipartisan appeal.
>The response to the U.S. DOT’s Congestion
>Reduction Initiative has been, in the words of
>one senior DOT official
>"gratifying."Thirty-eight jurisdictions have
>submitted proposals under the "Corridors of the
>Future" program aimed at reducing congestion in
>corridors of national and regional significance.
>Of these, fourteen have been short-listed and up
>to five will be chosen as finalists by this
>summer. The "Urban Partnerships" program, which
>aims to demonstrate cutting edge strategies for
>reducing urban traffic congestion, promises to
>elicit an equally positive response. And, as our
>series "Beyond the Tipping Point" has
>convincingly documented, there is a pronounced
>surge of interest on the part of state and local
>transportation officials in toll financing,
>public-private partnerships and private toll
>road concessions. Our latest count shows 26
>states actively pursuing these approaches, many
>of them as a result of positive encouragement from U.S. DOT.
>
>The importance of the federal influence was
>summed up succinctly by one state legislator to
>whom we spoke after the conference. We asked him
>what accounts for the new willingness of state
>policymakers to embrace tolling and
>public-private partnerships."No doubt the
>current budgetary shortfalls have encouraged us
>to look for new financing options," he told us,
>"but I would give a lot of credit to Secretary
>Peters. She has made it respectable for us to
>consider ideas that previously were thought
>unorthodox if not downright radical."
>
>Governors Daniels and Rendell Speak at the National Press Club
>
>Meanwhile, at the National Press Club, Indiana
>Governor Mitch Daniels and Pennsylvania Governor
>Ed Rendell held a press conference under the
>auspices of the National Governors Association,
>to explain why they have chosen asset leasing as
>the preferred approach to financing their states’ transportation needs.
>
>Leasing state assets is not a an ideological or
>partisan matter both governors– one a
>Republican, the other a Democrat– stressed. "We
>are looking at it out of necessity," said
>Rendell. The other options, he continued, would
>be raising the state gasoline tax by twelve
>and-a-half cents per gallon (and earn the
>distinction of having the highest gas tax in the
>nation) or doing nothing — and neither of these
>options was acceptable. Nor will states be able
>to depend on federal assistance to finance their
>future infrastructure needs, both governors
>agreed. A modest increase in the federal gas tax
>would hardly make a dent in meeting the states’
>long term requirements for transportation capital.
>
>On the other hand, Rendell said, a long-term
>lease of the Pennsylvania Turnpike should bring
>in almost one billion dollars in annual interest
>payments— enough to finance a statewide program
>of badly needed transportation improvements.
>Bonding, or mortgaging the toll facility as
>Turnpike CEO Joseph Brimmeier suggested, is an
>option, the Governor said, but it is not likely
>to bring in nearly as much revenue as a lease
>because of tax advantages available to private
>lease holders (for an explanation of the tax
>benefits of long term leasing, see
>"Understanding the Tax Benefits of Toll Road
>Concessions," Innovation Briefs, May/June 2006).
>
>Bidding on the 360-mile Pennsylvania Turnpike
>promises to be spirited and competition is
>expected to be fierce. Vast amounts of money,
>both foreign and domestic, are chasing a
>relatively limited supply of attractive
>investment prospects, and that is good news for
>states with sound, revenue-producing assets such
>as the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Wall Street
>investment banks and securities firms including
>Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch are forming
>their own equity funds and are expected to bid
>for assets in competition with foreign investors
>and domestic private equity funds. With interest
>rates at historic lows and lenders eager to
>facilitate deals, the competition will likely
>bid up asset valuation and provide an unexpected
>windfall to the fortunate states that have
>well-performing assets with a long and
>well-documented record of stable revenue and
>with a potential for further revenue growth. The
>Pennsylvania Turnpike fits that mold. The
>facility was used by 188 million vehicles in
>2005 and generated over $570 million in toll
>revenue in fiscal year 2006. Its traffic may be
>expected to keep growing for there are few
>alternate high-speed east-west corridors across
>Pennsylvania. Not surprisingly, the State has
>received nearly 50 preliminary responses to its
>solicitation, with prospective bidders including
>a veritable Who’s Who in global finance. Most of
>the offers, according to Governor Rendell, fall
>in the range of $10-$14 billion. That is a
>tempting prospect for a state that has a huge
>unfunded backlog of road and bridge repairs. It
>looks like Pennsylvania has it in its power to
>eliminate this backlog and rehabilitate its
>aging transportation infrastructure without a
>penny of borrowing or a tax increase.
>
>The Fiscal 2008 Transportation Budget Proposal
>
>The fiscal 2008 budget proposal unveiled by the
>White House on February 5, contains a total of
>$67 billion for transportation, with the highway
>& safety program receiving $42 billion and the
>transit program $9.4 billion (including $1.4
>billion for New Starts), both representing small
>increases over FY 2007 levels. Amtrak would
>receive a total of $800 million in capital
>assistance but again, as in FY 2007 budget
>request, no operating funds. The budget proposal
>also contains $175 million to help cities
>implement congestion reduction programs (this,
>on top of the $130 million that the White House
>announced in its energy initiative). In remarks
>introducing the FY 2008 transportation budget,
>Transportation Secretary Mary Peters sounded
>warnings about the impending budget crunch. "We
>are spending more than we take in, and we have
>nearly run through the balances that had built
>up in the Highway Trust Fund," she told the
>House Committee on Transportation and
>Infrastructure and the Appropriations
>Subcommittee on February 8. "Our projections
>suggest that spending may outpace receipts
>before the end of fiscal year 2009... We need
>serious reform of our approaches to both
>financing and managing our transportation
>network to win the battle against congestion."
>According to the latest information from U.S.
>DOT, the Highway Trust Fund Highway Account is
>projected to have a negative balance of $230 million by the end of FY 2009.
>
>For the first time, the fight against congestion
>has been recognized as a national challenge,
>acknowledged as a federal responsibility and
>explicitly enshrined in the federal budget. We
>agree with DOT leadership’s emphasis on pricing
>as probably the most effective tool with which
>to combat traffic congestion, and we commend the
>Department for its efforts to mainstream the
>concept of "congestion pricing" through the
>Urban Partnerships program. However, we are less
>sanguine about a form of congestion pricing
>known as "cordon fees" which have been proposed
>as a traffic management strategy for Midtown and
>Lower Manhattan. While pricing of highway lanes
>in congested corridors has become widely
>accepted, the practice of charging fees to enter
>or drive within a central urban area, as
>implemented in central London and Stockholm, has
>never caught on in this country. Unlike priced
>lanes, which motorists can elect to use or not
>use at their option, cordon pricing leaves
>motorists no choice: they are obliged to pay a
>fee if they wish to enter or drive within the
>cordon area. That looks like a punitive and
>regressive tax on driving to many people. Both
>Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Spitzer have made
>clear their lack of interest in supporting
>cordon fees. Without their support, and with
>polls overwhelmingly negative, cordon-type
>congestion pricing in Manhattan has little chance of moving forward.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Please feel free to forward or reprint this item
>with appropriate citation. While we do our
>best to eliminate duplicate listings, some do
>occur; if this is one of them, please accept our
>apologies. If you no longer wish to receive
>these dispatches please let us know at
><mailto:kor...@Iverizon.net>kor...@verizon.net
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>C. Kenneth Orski
>Editor/Publisher
>Innovation Briefs
>10200 Riverwood Drive
>Potomac, MD 20854
>tel: 301.299.1996
>fax: 301.299.4425
><http://www.innobriefs.com/>www.innobriefs.com
>
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Walter Brewer
But why isn't this collection of anointed experts using more imagination
instead of blindly seeking funds from different sources for more of the
same?
1), Is mass transit funding paying off? Especially its attempt to reach
beyond transportation for non drivers? 20 years in San Diego for example
using most of the capital portion of 40% of funds going to light rail mass
transit, has added 0.5% of trip share over the original. Reason Foundation
has shown how half the expenditure would catch up with congestion.
2), If politicians don't have the fortitude to bring gas taxes to the level
needed, and restore them to the original use for roads, at least the tolls
should be applied to all users. Even congestion pricing if that is helpful
in evening out demand distributions. Congestion pricing for HOT lanes like
the much hyped I-15 installation in San Diego means less than 10% of freeway
users pay toll. Equally important the installation REDUCES total freeway
throughput when ALL lanes are included. It is a sham to only talk about high
throughput in the HOT lanes, that restrict vehicle flow and overload the
rest.
3), Where is the effort to look ahead to innovation which will improve
overall efficiency in transport, both land uses and energy? Especially
automated systems that have potential for absorbing what is now road and
mass transit travel.
Tinkering around the fringes, and looking for funds to fund what is proven
not to work is counterproductive.
Walt Brewer
-----------------------------------------------------
>partisan matter both governors- one a
>Republican, the other a Democrat- stressed. "We
>are looking at it out of necessity," said
>Rendell. The other options, he continued, would
>be raising the state gasoline tax by twelve
>and-a-half cents per gallon (and earn the
>distinction of having the highest gas tax in the
>nation) or doing nothing - and neither of these
>options was acceptable. Nor will states be able
>to depend on federal assistance to finance their
>future infrastructure needs, both governors
>agreed. A modest increase in the federal gas tax
>would hardly make a dent in meeting the states'
>long term requirements for transportation capital.
>
>On the other hand, Rendell said, a long-term
>lease of the Pennsylvania Turnpike should bring
>in almost one billion dollars in annual interest
>payments- enough to finance a statewide program
Kirston Henderson
> 3), Where is the effort to look ahead to innovation which will improve
> overall efficiency in transport, both land uses and energy? Especially
> automated systems that have potential for absorbing what is now road and
> mass transit travel.
>
> Tinkering around the fringes, and looking for funds to fund what is proven
> not to work is counterproductive.
>
> Walt Brewer
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
> To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:17 PM
> Subject: [t-i] Fwd: [transport-policy] News from the Transportation Front
> No. 10
Walt,
I'm reasonably sure that nothing on the part of the U.S. Federal
Government is likely to develop or result in the development of any
significantly new solutions. All they are ever likely to do is to waste a
lot of taxpayer money looking at the problem.
I really can't remember any new development of major significance that
has come about as a result of Federal spending or effort. The following is
a short example of major new developments that were created by the private
sector:
1. Airplane
2. Automobile
3. Steamship
4. Steam engine & the IC engine
5. Computer & the IC
6. Sewing Machine
7. Cotton gin
8. Grain harvestors
9. Farm tactors
10. Electric lights (all types)
11. Sound recording (all types)
12. Motion pictures, TV, radio, etc.
13. Electric power generators and motors
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Roane
I know this is slightly off topic but I thought I would mention that Eli Whitney
("Eli Whitney failed to profit from his invention because imitations of his machine appeared and his 1794 patent for the cotton gin could not be upheld in court until 1807." ... "patent right for $50,000 but delayed in paying it. ") reference http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventions/a/cotton_gin.htm
did not make much of anything off of the cotton gin. He made his money off of a patent on a gun design. Leonardo Da Vinci did not make any money on his helicopter or hang glider designs but made money drawing war machines to kill people in larger and larger numbers. If you could find a way to get your MicroRail to run over army dudes in big numbers maybe you could get the feds to fund it. ;-)
Just feeling a little abused after being in the halls of government for a few days.
Jerry Roane
Tad Winiecki
1. The internet
2. Global Positioning System
3. Panama Canal
4. Hubble Telescope
6 Skylab
7 Nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers
8 DARPA's autonomous vehicle challenge (ongoing, results to be seen
later)
9 The Interstate highway system
10 Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration
On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Kirston Henderson wrote:
snip
God bless you.
Tad Winiecki
Higherway Transport Research
"Suburb to suburb quicker"
http://higherway.us
Evacuated Tube Transport licensee
http://www.et3.com
Kirston Henderson
> Let me refresh your memory, Kirston
> 1. The internet
> 2. Global Positioning System
> 3. Panama Canal
> 4. Hubble Telescope
> 6 Skylab
> 7 Nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers
> 8 DARPA's autonomous vehicle challenge (ongoing, results to be seen
> later)
> 9 The Interstate highway system
> 10 Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration
I don't believe that my memory is all that bad just yet. Just a comment
or so regarding the above:
1. The internet grew out of the original DARPA net and DARPA is a part of
the Federal Government, but that doesn't mean that the basic network
invention was done by DARPA. I really don't know exactly what individual
was responsible for the network approach invention, but from my dealings
with DARPA, I suspect that the invention came from the private sector and
was adopted by DARPA. Unless you can point to a network patent that was the
basis of the internet that indicates that it was a DARPA invention, I am
going to regard your comment as suspect.
2. The government paid for the development and implementation of GPS, but I
believe that the basic invention came from the private sector. If you
search for the basic patent, I suspect that you will find that to be true.
3. The Panama Canal wasn't an "invention" and the US Government didn't
even start it. They only finished it.
4. The Hubble Telescope doesn't really qualify as an "invention." Besides
that, it was suggested by some astronomers from outside NASA and NASA was
sold on the idea of doing it.
5. I don't believe that most people would consider Skylab as an invention.
I also don't even know that the idea originated at NASA. Do you?
6. I seem to remember that the submarine was not a US Government invention.
Individual inventors did the original "inventing." The US Navy did pay for
building the first Nuclear sub, but it is very likely that some engineer at
the company that built it and sold the Navy on the idea. As far as aircraft
carriers, I don't remember who came up with the basic idea. However, I'm
not sure that putting a nuclear reaction in a vessel as a power plant would
meet the US Patent Office criteria as being a patentable invention. They
would likely respond that it was "obvious" and deny a patent upon that
basis.
7. As for DARPA's autonomous vehicle challenge, they didn't invent
anything, but only encouraged the private sector to do so. Even then, I
suspect that someone from some commercial company sold them on the concept
and convinced them to fund the effort. Can you identify a patent for such
vehicle that is attributed to DARPA?
8. The Interstate Highway System was built with a combination of federal
and state funding, but the government didn't "invent" the freeway. As I
seem to recall, it was patterned after the German Autobaun which preceded it
by several years.
9. The Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Administration does
not qualify as an "invention."
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Roane
The Internet was invented by Al Gore and he is the government so that alone proves you wrong. ;-)
Transcript: Vice President Gore on CNN's 'Late Edition
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Al Gore March 1999Jerry Roane
Kirston Henderson wrote:
on 2/12/07 11:47 AM, Tad Winiecki at wini...@pacifier.com wrote:Let me refresh your memory, Kirston 1. The internet
larens imanyuel
<kirston....@megarail.com> said:
> 1. The internet grew out of the original DARPA net and DARPA is a
> part of the Federal Government, but that doesn't mean that the
> basic network invention was done by DARPA. I really don't know
> exactly what individual was responsible for the network approach
> invention, but from my dealings with DARPA, I suspect that the
> invention came from the private sector and was adopted by DARPA.
> Unless you can point to a network patent that was the basis of the
> internet that indicates that it was a DARPA invention, I am going
> to regard your comment as suspect.
Kirston,
You are taking too narrow a view of "invention" by restricting it to
specific patents. There has to be an "entrepreneur", who may or may
not have patents, in his name. Modern information technology concepts
were largely developed under the direction of an MIT professor,
J.C.R. Licklider, when he was head of the Information Processing
Techniques Office at DARPA. He was not just a bureaucrat handing
out grants, but helped develop the concepts himself. There was no
private corporation at the time which played such a leading role.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - I mean, what is it about a decent email service?
Dennis Manning
role in fostering innovation. The down side is that they have also had a
huge role in stifling innovation. The point is to get the government to do
the best job possible.
I know a lot of PRT advocates coming from technical backgrounds are loathe
to get engaged with the gov't, the reality is that getting gov't to do the
right thing is the only way forward, and that means politics.
I know I'm a broken record, but getting PRT started is primarly a political
problem. If it was technical we would have broken through 30 years ago.
Quit dumping on the gov't and learn to work with it. PRT absolutely has to
be a public-private deal. It may be frustrating but it's the real world.
Dennis
Jack Slade
Stop the bickering! The plain fact is that the government has had a huge
role in fostering innovation. The down side is that they have also had a
huge role in stifling innovation. The point is to get the government to do
the best job possible.
I know a lot of PRT advocates coming from technical backgrounds are loathe
to get engaged with the gov't, the reality is that getting gov't to do the
right thing is the only way forward, and that means politics.
I know I'm a broken record, but getting PRT started is primarly a political
problem. If it was technical we would have broken through 30 years ago.
Quit dumping on the gov't and learn to work with it. PRT absolutely has to
be a public-private deal. It may be frustrating but it's the real world.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "larens imanyuel"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 2:46 PM
Subject: [t-i] Re: U.S. Federal Government Development
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:31:05 -0600, "Kirston Henderson"
Jerry Roane
I agree completely. Pollution is our trump card. I have found that the knowledge base of the average air quality advocate is seriously lacking so you can imagine how politicians must feel being fed information from the places they get their data. The EPA should be leading the march in sending out true information so the correct decisions can be made but they have not so far. If people knew the ecological footprint they left behind that would be step one in solving pollution. Even the simple choices like what side of a set of house plans you put windows in a hot climate etc.have a big lifetime pollution consequence. All these choices have pollution and energy results but the level of education about ratios and proportion are missing from this topic. Your home energy waste beats your transportation choices for creating air pollution but transportation pollution is a big chunk. PRT and all electric dual mode is many times cleaner in total and we do need to get the word out. This is where the plug-in hybrid program comes up short because it is not as clean as a PRT or all electric guideway design. Dirty air is the dirty little secret that if exposed makes the choice easier to differentiate for the public and their politicians.
Jerry Roane
Dennis Manning
Walter Brewer
Dennis Manning
larens imanyuel
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:38:02 -0800, "Dennis Manning"
<john.m...@comcast.net> said:
> I think hitching our wagon to the solar/wind alternatives is the way
> to go. It's much easier to point out how PRT can be powered directly
> with solar bypassing the need for carrying fossil fuels or alternative
> fuels with all their problems whether it is gasoline, diesel,
> batteries, biofuels, or hydrogen than it is to delve into our
> advantages re capacity, speed, congestion relief, etc. PRT is GREEN
> GREEN GREEN.
Dennis,
I think that "economic competitiveness" trumps GREEN as a political
concern. This taken to the level of destructive absurdity may lead
to war in the oil-rich Middle East expanding to include Iran in
the next few months. Progressive economic competitiveness means
hitching your wagon to the general development of advanced
technology that the U.S. can sell to the rest of the world,
instead of dragging the world down in rogue superpower decline.
The Technominiaturization Roadmap I posted is generally in concert
with the current rate of technological progress. It projects that
dualmode vacuum transport will dominate the new transportation
system with PRT and GRT only taking secondary roles. Inexpensive
reliable control systems will be developed for mesotechnology and
robotics anyway, so the technology will be available for advanced
vacuum transport. Trying to hide this advanced technology behind
a popular front of "greenness" may make you PC, but is not likely
to get you the allies necessary to break through the social inertia
of the current transportation paradigm.
> I think PRT could well be on its way to finding funding streams
> outside of conventional transportation. The first tiny trickle being
> the EPA funding a PRT study in Pleasanton, CA.
>
> Still within the transportation realm, but I think its a remarkable
> event. BART and PATH (PATH has been the organization doing ITS/AHS
> research) are funding a GRT study that looks like it will put GRT
> in a very favorable light relative to BART's cost and performance.
> It's a little bit like the railroads and steam boats getting
> together in 1900, doing a study and saying, hey these flivver
> things really can work.
I think that replacing subway systems with GRT in places like
New York City is a viable concept, because of the high population
density and difficulty of new construction. You mentioned this
before as something under consideration.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
or over the web
Dennis Manning
Economic competiveness might trump the green imperitive in the political
hierarchy, but the point I was making was that in the political arena it's a
lot easier to explain why PRT is green, than it is to explain why it's
economically competitive. KISS.
I'm getting the impression that you are technically astute but politically
naive. Can you share a little of your political expertise, background,
involvement? I'll certainly yield to your technical expertise. Not so on the
politics.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "larens imanyuel" <lar...@emailplus.org>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Jack Slade
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:38:02 -0800, "Dennis Manning"
Jack Slade
Michael Weidler
Walter Brewer
Kirston Henderson
>
> Kirston,
>
> You are taking too narrow a view of "invention" by restricting it to
> specific patents. There has to be an "entrepreneur", who may or may
> not have patents, in his name. Modern information technology concepts
> were largely developed under the direction of an MIT professor,
> J.C.R. Licklider, when he was head of the Information Processing
> Techniques Office at DARPA. He was not just a bureaucrat handing
> out grants, but helped develop the concepts himself. There was no
> private corporation at the time which played such a leading role.
Thanks for the correction. That is indeed a very unusual event on the
part of a government agency, but DARPA is an agency that does not fit the
usual government agency pattern. I generally found the people at DARPA to
be exceptionally sharp during my own dealings with them. By the way, that
single professor did not alone invent all of modern information technology.
There were a lot of others along the way. I even made some contributions
myself during my previous career.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Kirston Henderson
> You might want to exclude airplanes from your list. Without the gov't we'd
> still be tinkering with powered gliders. Who do you think paid for your former
> aerospace job?
>
The Federal Government did become a significant factor in subsequent
development of the airplane, but only after the Wright brothers built the
first few and then managed to convince someone that the Army could make a
good military use of them. However, a lot of advances in the airplane came
first from civilian interest rather than the military.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Dennis Manning
----- Original Message -----From: Jack Slade
Dennis Manning
working on developing a heavier than air flying machine before the Wright
Brothers first successful flight. Anyone have more info?
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Fwd: [transport-policy] News from the Transportation
Front No. 10
Walter Brewer
It attempted to fly a short time before WB's but flopped into the Potomac
after being mildly catapulted from a house boat. Steam engine power I
believe.
Design was tandem wings of about same size. Not a canard as was WB's. I
believe the design at least and maybe the same aircraft was later
resurrected and flown; perhaps with modifications. Have little info about
that, or the particular reasons the first flight attempts failed.
Walt Brewer
Michael Weidler
larens imanyuel
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:13:05 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
<skytr...@rogers.com> said:
> Larens: I may agree with if the first evacuated-tube system with
> stations every quarter mile ever gets built. Until then, don't muddy
> the waters with this comparison, because if you know anything about
> mechanics you know this cannot be done.
Jack,
Don't set up straw men. Vacuum capsule pipelines are, of course, are
going to have stations much further apart than every quarter mile.
They, however, are going to be combined with robotic pick-up and
delivery down to the room scale. The node for this is 2015 when
DARPA plans to have robotic military delivery vehicles operational.
Mass produced personal "go-for" robots can also be made available.
Scaling up to automatic taxis shortly thereafter is just a matter
of economics driven by "Moore's Law". The basic technology is already
available, but needs to be made more powerful and less expensive.
FROG has already been operational for a decade, for instance.
Vacuum transport combined with autonomous robotic vehicles is
going to squeeze PRT type vehicles running on elevated electrified
guideways into secondary economic niches, so realizing this is
fundamental to good planning.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:26:28 -0800, "Dennis Manning"
<john.m...@comcast.net> said:
>
> larens:
>
> Economic competiveness might trump the green imperitive in the
> political hierarchy, but the point I was making was that in the
> political arena it's a lot easier to explain why PRT is green, than it
> is to explain why it's economically competitive. KISS.
>
> I'm getting the impression that you are technically astute but
> politically naive. Can you share a little of your political expertise,
> background, involvement? I'll certainly yield to your technical
> expertise. Not so on the politics.
Dennis,
I have quite a bit of political experience too. In 1968 I was the
down-state coordinator in Illinois to put an independent slate of
electors on the ballot. My task was to organize one county per day
by finding somebody to collect one hundred signatures there. We
barely missed getting the required number of counties, so my lesson
was that, having determined the required goal, stick with it and
do not let oneself eventually get slowed down by feeling isolated.
In 1980 I ran as the alternative candidate to Barry Commoner within
the Citizen's Party. This opened up the possibility to have some
extended discussions about future progressive politics. A general
lesson I have learned with party politics is that just spending
a lot of time making wish lists is not productive. One needs to
get down to a critical analysis of how change is going to occur.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web
Dennis Manning
I have quite a bit of political experience too. In 1968 I was the
down-state coordinator in Illinois to put an independent slate of
electors on the ballot. My task was to organize one county per day
by finding somebody to collect one hundred signatures there. We
barely missed getting the required number of counties, so my lesson
was that, having determined the required goal, stick with it and
do not let oneself eventually get slowed down by feeling isolated.
In 1980 I ran as the alternative candidate to Barry Commoner within
the Citizen's Party. This opened up the possibility to have some
extended discussions about future progressive politics. A general
lesson I have learned with party politics is that just spending
a lot of time making wish lists is not productive. One needs to
get down to a critical analysis of how change is going to occur.
Jack Slade
larens imanyuel <lar...@emailplus.org> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 02:13:05 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
said:
> Larens: I may agree with if the first evacuated-tube system with
> stations every quarter mile ever gets built. Until then, don't muddy
> the waters with this comparison, because if you know anything about
> mechanics you know this cannot be done.
Jack,
Don't set up straw men. Vacuum capsule pipelines are, of course, are
going to have stations much further apart than every quarter mile.
They, however, are going to be combined with robotic pick-up and
delivery down to the room scale. The node for this is 2015 when
DARPA plans to have robotic military delivery vehicles operational.
Mass produced personal "go-for" robots can also be made available.
Scaling up to automatic taxis shortly thereafter is just a matter
of economics driven by "Moore's Law". The basic technology is already
available, but needs to be made more powerful and less expensive.
FROG has already been operational for a decade, for instance.
Vacuum transport combined with autonomous robotic vehicles is
going to squeeze PRT type vehicles running on elevated electrified
guideways into secondary economic niches, so realizing this is
fundamental to good planning.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:26:28 -0800, "Dennis Manning"
larens imanyuel
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:22:08 -0800, "Dennis Manning"
<john.m...@comcast.net> said:
> That's more than I expected, but it doesn't seem very connected to the
> transportation political arena. It also hints that you have not had
> much political activity for about 25 years. Academic analysis of
> change is one thing, battling in the trenches to make it happen is
> another, but both are no doubt needed. Thanks for responding.
Dennis,
I dropped out of formal political activity about 25 years ago after I
realized how unproductive it was because of a general lack of serious
analysis. I moved to more direct participation, e.g., by being on the
Transportation Committee of the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable
Development, whose principle actors include major corporations and
government agencies. I eventually dropped that, because I did not
yet have a specific enough technoeconomic analysis to present to them.
At this point I do have a specific enough analysis to become an open
advocate for a specific program.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
Dennis Manning
of Magnemotion was giving a talk entitled "Magnemotion and maglev PRT". I
thought they were working on a GRT scale maglev with a non-passive switch.
This sounds different. Any have info on this?
Dennis
Kirston Henderson
I have also seen some things regarding the Magnemotion transit system
efforts, but from what I have seen, I don't know how they plan to operate
the system in the presence of snow on the guideway. Can anyone shed any
light on this matter?
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Jerry Roane
You bring up an interesting topic. I am curious how much heating there is for each car that passes. If enough cars pass over a particular point it would keep it hot and melt the snow off. If the cars come less frequently you could fire the coils just to warm the guideway and melt the ice and snow. Trucks use heating coils on their rear view mirrors for this kind of problem and that seems to work for that application. If the maglev has a large top area where snow can pile up that could be a problem for trying to melt your way out of the problem. Induction linear motors waste about 20% of the energy they use, so with fast enough cars you could get enough of this waste heat to melt some amount of ice. It is a function of the area to be kept heated above 32 degrees F and the temperature of the night. We have an exposed surface that is 14.5 inches on three sides that would need to be heated by the internal power cables that are heating homes in the area but the waste heat that is normally being emitted from power wires suspended in air would be emitting that heat into the conduit inside the TriTrack guideway. Using this waste heat comes for "free" in a sense because it is currently only warming the feet of a million birds in the city. If the load on the particular wire inside the guideway is too light of a load we would add a heating wire to make up for the power wiring having too light of a load on a particular span. Plumbers use something similar to keep water pipes from freezing. Our guideway point is up, so snow will not collect on the steep sides of the guideway. Ice from mist may attach itself if the surface of the aluminum is allowed to drop below freezing or if there is no car passing to blow the moisture off the surface. Ice buildup happens in Texas more than other more obvious locations because we have the Gulf moist air that meets cold fronts from the North. This combination makes for black ice on asphalt which is particularly deadly. If the air gets colder the humidity drops and the icing problem is lessened. It is the transition from moist humid air to instantly colder air that makes the worst case scenario I think. With a steep roof you only need to melt the bottom thin layer of the ice and break the top edge and the ice will fall off. If the maglev guideway is flat on top this will be much harder. My triangular roof top guideway patent could solve their problem if they are trying to keep the top side ice free. If they are suspended from underneath then their problem is solved and any ice that forms from condensation would be thin enough that they could float over the thickness unless you had repeated moist-cold-moist-cold sessions. I am sure the maglev folks have an answer for ice. Their assumed budget is many times higher from what I have seen. For the kind of money estimates I have seen for maglev you could just enclose the whole thing in a mall and sell snow cones to offset the cost. ;-)
Jerry
Kirston Henderson
> Kirston
>
> You bring up an interesting topic. I am curious how much heating there
> is for each car that passes. If enough cars pass over a particular
> point it would keep it hot and melt the snow off. If the cars come less
> frequently you could fire the coils just to warm the guideway and melt
> the ice and snow. Trucks use heating coils on their rear view mirrors
> for this kind of problem and that seems to work for that application.
> If the maglev has a large top area where snow can pile up that could be
> a problem for trying to melt your way out of the problem. Induction
> linear motors waste about 20% of the energy they use, so with fast
> enough cars you could get enough of this waste heat to melt some amount
> of ice.
I was told recently that in the small town near the farm where I grew
up, they had an ice storm that deposited a three-inch layer of ice on wires
and trees. As a result, almost all of the wires, including farm fences were
taken down by the ice and the trees are now only stubs making the entire
area look like a war zone where all of the limbs have been blown off of the
trees. I would think almost anything would stop under those conditions.\
As far as trying to heat guideways to keep them clean the Morgantown
automated transit system that the Feds built has a steam plant that forces
steam or hot water through pipes in the concrete to keep the surfaces above
freezing. In my mind, that is a pretty extreme and expensive approach and
may be one of reasons that we have not seen the Morgantown type system
installed anywhere else. I even heard some talk about heating guideways for
systems in the I-70 mountain corridor when I was out there in October!
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
larens imanyuel
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:33:35 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
<skytr...@rogers.com> said:
> I still think the mechanics to make all this transitional stuff happen
> will put it more than 25 years into the future, and we don't have that
> long. We need answers NOW, things that are ready to go. Nearly
> everything I need for PRT can be picked off the shelf in warehouses
> right at this moment. I can have a million miles operational in 25
> years, most of it from profits rather than govt expenditure. This is
> what I think will make PRT a winner.
Jack,
When working with a 25 year timeline, designing your system with
off the shelf components NOW, rather than creating new parts
optimized for the massive new market, is a rather poor strategy.
Look where it got Raytheon. Building a million mile transport
system involves creating a lot of interfaces with urban and
regional systems. This is why PRT has gotten almost nowhere
since the basic technology became possible about forty years ago.
If all the basic interfaces have been worked out in 17 years
per the Technominiaturization Roadmap, a million miles of
vacuum transport could be built in the next 8 years, meeting
your 25 year time horizon, but resulting in a vastly superior
system than your proposed PRT system built with current technology.
This does not mean that nothing is being built within the next
17 years, for preliminary systems have to be built and tested
before committing to a grand system. Since I am proposing building
an express freight system first, this means that much of the real
world testing would be done first with a smaller system that could
quickly be generating profits. After the smaller system has been
proven to work well, public subsidies to help build a larger system
are likely. Governments have an interest in seeing that their area
attracts investment by having advanced transportation infrastructure.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different…
Kirston Henderson
> This does not mean that nothing is being built within the next
> 17 years, for preliminary systems have to be built and tested
> before committing to a grand system. Since I am proposing building
> an express freight system first, this means that much of the real
> world testing would be done first with a smaller system that could
> quickly be generating profits. After the smaller system has been
> proven to work well, public subsidies to help build a larger system
> are likely. Governments have an interest in seeing that their area
> attracts investment by having advanced transportation infrastructure.
I tend to agree with your assessment. In our own small corner of this
business, we have consistently received more attention for the cargo
movement versions of our systems and it appears possible that we might
actually find a cargo customer first, although we also have some pretty
strong interests from a few high-potential mass transit customers. The
surprising thing about the situation is that the cargo interest has come
very little effort on our part.
From the economic analyses that we have done for the MegaRail® and
CargoRail versions, it appears that cargo is the item that is most likely
to make the lines profitable. Hence, these applications are the most likely
to become installed and operating systems.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Sergey Prokhorenko
Sergey Prokhorenko
sergeypr...@yahoo.com.au
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Dennis Manning
Also — in contrast to Maglev Systems — the new HSR world record attempts can no longer be achieved with normal rolling stock. The train must be significantly modified in a way that would not be suitable for normal passenger use: Motors are modified, wheels are increased in diameter, pantographs reportedly are reduced from two to one as standing waves in overhead wires threaten to damage them. The train will run on a long, moderate downhill track. The Duplex train will consist of three coaches plus two power heads only (instead of the normal eight coaches + two power heads]. According to informal reports, the overhead wires on the line were also modified and a significantly higher voltage than usual will be used). Switches and switchblades are expected to be locked and armed with steel brackets again (some sources even mention welding) to minimize derailing risks.
Jack Slade
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:33:35 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
Sergey Prokhorenko
Dennis Manning
switch. Nothing new.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirston Henderson" <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Walter Brewer
larens imanyuel
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:31:35 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
<skytr...@rogers.com> said:
> Larens: What I meant was that the components for my system exists now,
> and engineers will find it easy to plan and assemble, wheras what you
> are talking about has not yet yet been done, and requires new
> technology. You may not believe me, but you may after you try to
> evacuate the first mile of tube, and keep it evacuated, with vehicles
> constantly entering and leaving. Even the moisture on the vehicles
> becomes atmosphere in the tube and has to be pumped out constantly,
> probably with pumps that are not on the shelf right now, and these
> pumps all need energy to operate, making for a higher ticket price.
> Eventually the lower ticket price wins, that is just basic economics.
Jack,
I find it interesting how many engineers lash out at their competition
without even doing a back-of-the-envelope design to see how well it
works. Vacuum technology has been around for a long time at the very
modest vacuums needed for subsonic transport. There is plenty of
available equipment. I agree that long distance supersonic vacuum
transport will require more consideration, but we are not talking
about that here. If one makes a reasonable effort to minimize leakage
and the volume of the interhatch spaces needed to be pumped, one
quickly sees that the residual drag energy is much larger than the
needed pumping energy. This residual drag is much lower than for
operating at ambient pressure, of course. Your comment about moisture
evaporating shows that you are talking about trying to routinely run
the entire pressure capsules in and out of the pipeline - hardly
a recommended solution.
> There are other problems. When an aircraft climbs to an area where
> seven-eights of the atmosphere is below it, the pressure inside is
> no longer sea-level....it has been allowed to decrease slowly to the
> equivalent of about the 8,000 foot level. If you try to do this
> fast, which would be ecessary on a short trip, ear drums will break,
> and other nasty medical things will happen to the human body. You
> can compensate with a very heavy vehicle which can withstand the
> full 15 PSI pressure, and then you can re-design the whole system
> to carry the heavier weight, and the extra energy needed to push it,
> unless you have planned on this from day one. The alternative would
> be decompression chambers at each station, with the accompanying
> delay for everybody.
Again you are setting up a straw man. Not using a closed system is
a bad idea for just the reasons you give. A 15 PSI cylindrical
pressure vessel, however, can be made much lighter than typical
payloads, so is no real problem.
> If you are trying to sell me on the idea that ETT can cover a city,
> and carry the millions of passengers per day that are necessary, I
> am going to take a lot of convincing.
Currently cities are covered with networks of underground pipelines
for utilities and drainage, so the general situation is hardly new.
The amount of material needed to build vacuum pipelines and portals
is going to be much less than that needed to build contemporary
mass transit and superhighway systems, so there is no basic
financial constraints with vacuum transport. It will just take
good engineering and financing.
> By comparison, I have no trouble finding electric motors,
> transformers, speed controllers, self-aligning flange-mounted
> bearings, cold rolled steel shafting, and wire, which accounts for
> most of my system, and I can teach somebody to assemble the first
> ten-foot section in about an hour. After that, everything is
> repetitive, as in production line.
Vacuum transport will require designing new equipment, because of
the somewhat atypical environment used. Overall it will require far
less equipment, however, because of the much higher operating speeds.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The way an email service should be
Dennis Manning
Jack Slade
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:31:35 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
Rober...@aol.com
Daryl Oster
government program was a miserable failure, culminating in Langley's fall
into the Potomac. http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/langley.html
The Wright Brothers approached the military AFTER their first flights, they
demonstrated their airplane, and they were flat rejected. The officer they
presented to said something like "there will never be a military need for
aircraft". It was not until 1909 that the military purchased the first
airplane for $25,000 + $5,000 bonus for exceeding specs. (NOTE: they did
NOT build it with government funds as Langley had with his $50k failure.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers
Glenn Curtis is the inventor who made aircraft practical, and he made
significant profits from his many innovations, INCLUDING some government
contracts. While Curtis generally profited handsomely from aircraft
development, he amassed most of his fortune in Florida real estate worth
millions when he died, and billions today. see http://glennhcurtiss.com/
Most significant aircraft development (with the exceptions of the military
development of jets and rockets) were private. For instance Howard Hughes
personally funded his many aircraft innovations with funds generated by his
movie and (mostly)oil industries -- THEN he demonstrated the innovations to
the military and usually (not always) received orders that produced profits.
Much of Hughes aircraft profits were from private airline operations that
benefited from his aircraft innovations (but built by another company due to
obtuse government regulations). The movie "the aviator" is a good overview
of his innovations in aircraft, and air transport, and his dealings with the
government. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes and
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Explorers_Record_Setters_and_Daredev
ils/Hughes/EX28.htm
Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-
> innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kirston Henderson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:55 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] Re: Fwd: [transport-policy] News from the Transportation
> Front No. 10
>
>
larens imanyuel
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:40:00 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
<skytr...@rogers.com> said:
> Larens: If you look at the problems that cities are having with
> underground pipelines, and the multiply by ten, you will have some
> idea of the problems you will encounter here.
Jack,
I presume you are mainly referring to corrosion. When leakage has
to be minimized multilayer systems are used, i.e., steel inside
concrete. Vacuum pipelines are much less of a problem than ones
carrying fluids, because they do not have a corrosion problem
from the inside as well as from the outside.
> There is no such thing as a closed system.
No, but there are systems many miles long with vacuums orders
of magnitude better than what is needed for transport.
They are part of large particle accelerators.
> The A/C system on my car,
> with a volume of a little more than one quart, takes one-half hour
> with a good pump to evacuate to -28PSI. That is about 7 eights of an
> atmosphere.
You would be more credible, if your numbers and units were correct.
> The problem is water, which vaporizes at low pressures, and keeps
> expanding, and expanding, as pressures decrease. Ett is talking
> about even better evacuation, and if you knew a little about the pumps
> needed then you would know a little about what I am talking about.
Water is no problem, if you are not admitting it as a standard part
of your operation. One should have a few emergency water pumps
available for the rare cases when a substantial amount of water
gets into the system.
> A closed system is just that. If you put something in, it better be
> moisture-free. The pump-down times for each entering vehicle will be
> so long that you can never anticipate doing it millions of times a
> day in each city. Long trips will be much more practical than long
> trips, and short range will be impossible. Remember, I did not say
> impractical, I said impossible.
Again, it is interesting how many people insist on pursuing straw
man arguments even after they have been corrected. In my last
posting I said I did not consider it practical to have entire
vehicles enter and leave the vacuum (except for maintenance).
Roadway vehicles and cargo would enter the pressure capsules
through double hatchways. This is how space vehicles, which are
in a vacuum environment, dock and exchange people and cargo.
This also enables the separation of the design of interior and
exterior spaces relative to the pressure vessel, so that different
types of suspension and propulsion systems may easily be used with
the same payloads.
> P. S. I have never claimed to be an engineer, but I thought all
> engineers knew this, and more.
I have often claimed to be an engineer - working mainly on getting
advanced technology to operate correctly.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
Jack Slade
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:40:00 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
Dennis Manning
- the problem of moisture entering from the locks
- the idea of a docking station rather the removal of the whole vehicle from
the evacuated tube
Comments?
Dennis
Dennis Manning
Jack Slade
Jerry Roane
I have some experience with high vacuum in seismometer equipment manufacture and a sloppy operator thumb print can take an hour to pump down in a one cubic foot stainless steel chamber. The big difference in the vacuum you are thinking about and the vacuum transport are worlds away. Vacuum comes in areas of gray. As you point out water vapor and humidity adhered to the surface of a capsule will boil off raising the absolute pressure inside the tube. The trick would be to pick an operational vacuum level that is most cost effective. It could be as low as the air density at 40,000 feet as one easy to explain example. At 40,000 feet elevation airplanes have lower drag than on takeoff. At 40,000 feet there is enough air to gather to feed the air conditioner system. Although not a perfect vacuum it would reduce the aerodynamic drag. How deep of a vacuum would be an economic and energy question between 40,000 feet air density and deep space density. I am not smart enough to know how much aerodynamic drag would be on a barrel shaped car inside a pipe evacuated to various levels of economically obtainable vacuum. I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the middle of pure vacuum and one the absolute pressure at 40,000 feet. One sided vacuum transport has been around a really long time so it obviously works at medium vacuum levels. How fast and how much aerodynamic drag will come from the pumping action of the car in the tube is what the development test model would tell us. Since no one is building anything, this information is hard to come by. That leaves it in the realm of pontificaters like us. I am very curious to see test data showing a graph of total energy (car and vacuum pump) versus various vacuum gage measurements. It may be that a combination of aerodynamic vehicles running in partial vacuum buildings with ample room for air to escape around the car is the most cost effective solution. We just don't know till something is built and tested.
I would be more worried about ground shifts that can rip a water main in half on a hot day. The power of earth geological movement cannot be resisted by a concrete thread. If the ground moves the tube will rupture. Implied in that is there will be a floating tube in a tube if it is underground. The outer tube being loose fitting enough to compensate for geological shifts. Again until a few are built we won't know the magnitude of these issues.
Jerry Roane
larens imanyuel
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:33:35 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
<skytr...@rogers.com> said:
> Docking stations work in space, but are expensive, slow, and does away
> with the "no transfer" method of PRT, hence less convenience. However,
> it is better than stepping into space with a space-suit.
The slow part of docking in space is the rendezvous where the vehicles
are free floating and must be maneuvered carefully with thrusters.
With tracked vehicles this can be made a few second operation. As
for expense, docking stations would be a small part of the overall
cost of a system and less expensive that air locks, so financially
they are not a problem. The higher costs of time and energy for PRT
compared to dualmode vacuum transport make PRT uneconomical for
typical metropolitan travel. It is not appropriate to only take
a narrow view of capital costs, and not to look at the overall
system costs.
> Any moisture that gets into the system will be a major problem. It
> works fine, but slowly, on a small system in a lab. However, I
> expect it to be a major problem with a tube which is miles in
> length....but then, remember, I am not an engineer, I just have a
> good idea of what engineering can do.
I have no idea why you think that there will be massive infiltration
of water. The small amount that is likely to enter the system will
just evaporate and be removed by the vacuum pumps, which may require
a small condensate drain. All of this is standard engineering.
larens
--
larens imanyuel
lar...@emailplus.org
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service
Daryl Oster
You say you are not an engineer, and that an engineer should know about
these things. Well I am not an engineer either, nor am I a vacuum expert,
yet I do know more than most engineers about how vacuum technology relates
to ETT.
There are a full spectrum of SWAGS (Scientific Wild A$$ Guesses) taken at
ETT vacuum issues from many well intended scientists and engineers. Many
people with technical expertise in other fields very often imagine far
bigger problems than are real, and would be capable of dismissing on their
own if they actually bothered to look up a few well published facts, and run
a few basic calculations.
I have had PhDs in science, technical, and engineering related fields
explain to me (an engineering school drop-out), how:
1) An ETT system will be impossible due to vacuum issues;
2) The worst vacuum loads and problems of ETT will be "trivial" to solve;
3) Many positions ranging between these two extremes.
You are correct that water plays a major role in vacuum system load. It is
also fact that water is common in the air; and dealing with H2O in vacuum
systems is a well established science. There are many proven ways to
effectively deal with water vapor issues that some with a little technical
knowledge of the subject might be tempted to think will cause problems for
ETT.
Water molecules are polar, and really stick well to most (but not all)
surfaces; this property often causes problems in effective fast removal in
many vacuum systems. The many vacuum experts we have consulted with explain
to me that water also has properties that make it relatively easy to quickly
and effectively remove or exclude from vacuum systems including: condensing
(or freezing) onto cold surfaces, using heat (or other intense energy flux)
to drive it off of surfaces, and sorbant materials that "grab" or "get" H2O
vapor.
I am not an expert in vacuum systems, or all the nuances of water vapor,
however, I have accumulated hundreds of megabytes of material from experts
in the field that assure us that the time and energy to exclude air (and the
water it carries) from ETT will be well within design parameters. Further
incremental improvements in vacuum science will be very likely once ETT is
implemented.
We have identified dozens of ways to deal with moisture laden air, and
ensure that it will not negatively impact airlock cycle time of about 30
seconds. I am happy to discus this issue in any detail up to the limits of
my knowledge with any licensees who have an interest.
Dennis,
As far as docking, it is a possibility that is more costly from several
perspectives, yet will doubtless have many applications, especially where
low throughput is acceptable. Let me know if you need any additional info
on this or the water issue, best to call, as it takes a lot less of my time
than typing.
Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-
> innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Slade
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:34 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] Re: aircraft inovations (was " Front No. 10")
>
Jack Slade
Jack Slade
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:33:35 -0500 (EST), "Jack Slade"
Jack Slade
Tad Winiecki
dehumidifier(s). Don't ever let moist air near the capsules that go in
the evacuated tubes.
The tubes have dense concrete (Ductal) which if it doesn't seal well
enough can be coated so negligible air or water gets through it.
I also worked with vacuum chambers in space research. The vacuum that
ETT needs is easy to achieve with mechanical and cryo pumps, the oil
diffusion pumps and ion pumps I used shouldn't be necessary.
Jerry Roane wrote: "I would be more worried about ground shifts that
geological movement cannot be resisted by a concrete thread. If the
ground moves the tube will rupture. Implied in that is there will be a
floating tube in a tube if it is underground. The outer tube being
loose fitting enough to compensate for geological shifts."
earth. A landslide, falling boulder, or earthquake could take out an
ETT tube or guideway.
I know Daryl has thought about this a lot and has an automatic
realignment feature for small movements of the track in the ETT tubes.
God bless you.
Tad Winiecki
Higherway Transport Research
"Suburb to suburb quicker"
http://higherway.us
Evacuated Tube Transport licensee
http://www.et3.com
Daryl Oster
one of the preferred embodiments of an airlock, that a departing capsule
displaces almost all the air from the airlock. The vacuum system is
specially designed to quickly extract most (not all) of the small amount of
air in the minimal annular and linear clearance (less than 1mm).
The evacuated airlock is then moved to the arrival port (exchanged), so it
is ready to accept an inbound capsule without waiting for a pump-down cycle.
Many proprietary improvements to the airlock have been conceived and
documented since the initial patent document was filed.
Jerry, Most of your electronically devices work as designed do they not?
Please consider that electronic devices are orders of magnitude more complex
than ETT. The magnitude of all the issues relating to ETT are well
researched and well understood by those versed in the individual arts. ALL
of our claims are based strictly on the known state of the art. Questions
do remain as to fine optimization of less than magnitude scale, so there
will be plenty of room to improve ETT after initial systems are built.
Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-
> innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Slade
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 3:08 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] Re: aircraft inovations (was " Front No. 10")
>
Daryl Oster
Your are correct that there is an energy overhead associated with ETT.
Before you jump to more incorrect conclusions, please consider that the
typical CRT television or computer monitor is evacuated to a thousand times
higher quality vacuum than optimal for ETT. How many times have you had to
have the vacuum renewed in your TV? Now please consider that all the CRT
tubes in the world would if lined up end to end at least encircle the globe.
The surface area to volume ratio of ETT guideway is far superior than the
ratio of all those CRTs.
ETT is specifically designed to reduce the cost of MOST (not all)
transportation to the absolute minimum, and accordingly for MOST (not all)
transport, ETT will be much lower cost than PRT on the same route. Please
consider that more than half of the urban passenger miles (and ton miles)
traveled are on freeways; AND urban travel represents slightly less than
half of all transport in the US.
There will be some pumping required to maintain the vacuum in an ETT system
optimized to reduce the cost of transportation to the absolute minimum.
Compared with PRT, the huge energy savings made possible by ETT take less
than 5 miles to recover the airlock and life-support overhead. ETT may be
likened to freeways, and PRT likened to collector arteries, they both have
their niche, and compliment each others capibilities.
Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-
> innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Slade
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:51 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] Re: aircraft inovations (was " Front No. 10")
>
Jerry Roane
I want to be clear vacuum tube transport is not my project but I do see potential in it. My point is that test pieces need to be built for the good of us all. At this point I am not visualizing a show stopper. I see moderation on speed and vacuum level as this is an analog world usually fought with non-linear functions in control. It points to the tremendous complexity of creation that most natural systems are buffered and mathematically bounded. Research and Development is needed-- heavy on the development. At present our nation is too heavy on the research end and light on the development end. This stems from our universities and the approach taken by academia. It is easier to stay in the office and classroom than to get dirty in the lab. One without the other is not as effective as the combination. I'll shut up now.
Jerry Roane
Jack Slade
Daryl Oster
>
> Larens: What I meant was that the components for my system exists now, and
> engineers will find it easy to plan and assemble, wheras what you are
> talking about has not yet yet been done, and requires new technology.
Jack,
I accept that your system and ETT have not yet been built, yet is not true
that ETT requires new or even unproven technology.
Consider that travel in an evacuated environment is the most proven form of
transportation ever. (3,521,520,000,000,000,000 passenger mile for 2006
alone!). And the system of evacuated environment transport presently in use
has been operating at this potential for more than 20,000 years, with
extremely high reliability of 100%. The safety is also unparalleled; only
one death per 34 billion passenger miles (and this number is constantly
improving).
> You may not believe me, but you may after you try to evacuate the first
> mile of tube, and keep it evacuated, with vehicles constantly entering and
> leaving. Even the moisture on the vehicles becomes atmosphere in the tube
> and has to be pumped out constantly, probably with pumps that are not on
> the shelf right now, and these pumps all need energy to operate, making
> for a higher ticket price.
ETT having the performance we claim can be build with 100% off the shelf
components and technologies that are ALL highly proven (including the vacuum
pumps, sealing technology, airlock valves, alignment actuators, maglev
system, etc.
> Eventually the lower ticket price wins, that is just basic economics.
Good point Jack, benefit to cost ratio is the bottom line.
> There are other problems. When an aircraft climbs to an area where seven-
> eights of the atmosphere is below it, the pressure inside is no longer
> sea-level....it has been allowed to decrease slowly to the equivalent of
> about the 8,000 foot level. If you try to do this fast, which would be
> ecessary on a short trip, ear drums will break, and other nasty medical
> things will happen to the human body. You can compensate with a very heavy
> vehicle which can withstand the full 15 PSI pressure, and then you can
> re-design the whole system to carry the heavier weight, and the extra
> energy needed to push it, unless you have planned on this from day one.
> The alternative would be decompression chambers at each station, with the
> accompanying delay for everybody.
Jack, if you bothered to read the ETT patent document you would know that
the loads of internal pressure are fully recognized. The ETT patent
document discloses varying the internal pressure as the vehicle travels to
match the pressure at the desired location. And you are correct, when there
is a large change in altitude (as in mountains) for a short trip, this could
cause some discomfort for some people, just as some have problems in cars on
mountain passes, or in pressurized or unpressurized aircraft.
BTW, the pressure hull (for a 15psi internal pressure load) for the standard
6 seat ETT capsule weighs less than 90lbs. It is made of Kevlar, and
designed to a safety factor of 10. As far as heavy, the tare weight of a 6
place ETT capsule is just under 400lbs, including the seating and air
conditioning modules. 400lb/6seats = 67lbs per seat. What is the empty
vehicle mass per seat for your system?
> If you are trying to sell me on the idea that ETT can cover a city, and
> carry the millions of passengers per day that are necessary, I am going to
> take a lot of convincing.
Pragmatism is good. Provided that your mind is open, and you are willing to
consider the evidence we have accumulated, I have no doubt you will be
convinced.
> By comparison, I have no trouble finding electric motors, transformers,
> speed controllers, self-aligning flange-mounted bearings, cold rolled
> steel shafting, and wire, which accounts for most of my system, and I can
> teach somebody to assemble the first ten-foot section in about an hour.
> After that, everything is repetitive, as in production line.
> Jack Slade
There are likely some situations you may be able to define where your system
might have some advantage over ETT. I am wiling (publicly or privately) to
go into fine detail any time you are ready to compare, and to make
comparison on any route that you propose for your system. A generic side by
side engineering comparison of your system to ETT would likely cause you
some embarrassment if done in public.
Daryl Oster
about 300-400mph. In fact, the ETT patent discloses use of wheels for low
speed ETT systems. My wife was insistent on promoting maglev only, so to
"prove her wrong" I crunched the numbers and discovered (to my surprise)
that HTSM maglev is the lower cost option for even low speed (350mph) ETT.
Now, the only use of wheels I advocate for ETT is for an extremely low cost
human powered demo, that has the potential to win a 500mile race compared to
an Indy car. The special pedal powered capsule using three, 2' diameter
steel wheels (a 1/16th inch wide), riding directly on the inside of a 2.5'
diameter evacuated steel pipe tube (running surface ground smooth and
accurate).
Daryl Oster
(c) 2007 all rights reserved. ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes, and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc. For licensing information contact: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, e...@et3.com , www.et3.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: transport-...@googlegroups.com [mailto:transport-
> innov...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Manning
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:14 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] Re: TGV is as fast as maglev
>
> <http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/35.gif>
>
> http://news.monstersandcritics.com/business/news/article_1263596.php
> /French_high-speed_TGV_breaks_world_conventional_rail-speed_record
>
>
>
>
> Sergey Prokhorenko
> sergeypr...@yahoo.com.au
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com/>