DM vs SM yet again....
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Weidler
Jun 27, 2009, 7:24:20 PM6/27/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| The problem is the private vehicle, which needs to be returned to the owner for the next trip for most systems. Your system has other difficulties noted below. Let's try a typical commute: 1) I leave my house in my brand new $10,000 Neighborhood Vehicle (ok, sort of a cheap shot) and drive to the DM access point. 2) I negotiate the congestion getting into and then through the access point. Note: there is congestion getting into and out of the local grocery store. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that you won't have congestion accessing your system. 3) Side issue: these access points are as big as if not bigger than the current access ramps to freeways in all the pics I've seen - including your system. Where are you going to put them? 4) I'm now at my destination. How do I get out of my vehicle? In your system, I am literally dropped into traffic (no stations). The same is true for Kirston's car ferry. Most other systems I've seen can use SM type guideway and stations, which present a different set of problems. Both options result in congestion for some one. 5) We get the same problems when we go to the reverse commute. Although there should be less congestion at the home exit, since you are leaving at the same time and out pacing the surface traffic. Obviously, public vs private vehicles makes no difference for your or Kirston's systems. Public vehicles would not mitigate any ony the problems for either system. --- On Sat, 6/27/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:
|
Jerry Roane
Jun 27, 2009, 9:01:55 PM6/27/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael
It was a simple question you did not answer the "which will do pretty much nothing about congestion." question. I will respond to your story line when/if you answer the question.
Jerry Roane
It was a simple question you did not answer the "which will do pretty much nothing about congestion." question. I will respond to your story line when/if you answer the question.
Jerry Roane
Dave Petrie
Jun 27, 2009, 10:14:04 PM6/27/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Hello?
I have thought of all these questions starting in 1992,
explained the solutions, and how to go about proving/learning via Proof of
Concept demonstrations.
BTW, eliminating freeway congestion was my primary goal;
concern about foreign oil dependence was growing, with global warming not
yet a headliner.
I earlier posted my papers (as attachments to this
chat group ~three-months ago) that I presented at the the 13th Electric
Vehicle Symposium (Osaka,1996), adding more detail at the 15th EVS (Brussels,
1998), again at the Canadian Transportation Research Forum (PEI,
2000).
Anyone wanting to see it all laid out, give me a
shout.
Michael Weidler
Jun 29, 2009, 3:57:11 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| I've given you 3 or 4 points of congestion. There are more points of congestion if you are using SM type guideway in the CBDs. Given that your particular system dumps the vehicles back into traffic, I don't see how you can claim any reduction in congestion. |
--- On Sat, 6/27/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 6:01 PM |
|
|
Michael Weidler
Jun 29, 2009, 4:29:00 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| Dave, According to the pics you've shown over the years, your stations are quite large. Where are you going to put them? And you've got the same problem as Jerry & Kirston, when you get them to within striking distance of their destination you have to dump them back into traffic. How in the world does this solve congestion? --- On Sat, 6/27/09, Dave Petrie <DaveP...@comcast.net> wrote: |
|
Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009, 7:14 PM |
|
|
Jerry Roane
Jun 29, 2009, 5:23:19 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael
Your claim was "which will do pretty much nothing about congestion." nothing about congestion is not 2 or 3 things that change congestion. I will now respond to your concerns.
1. "1) I leave my house in my brand new $10,000 Neighborhood Vehicle (ok, sort of a cheap shot) and drive to the DM access point." --- Thanks for buying a TriTrack. You will drive about 1/2 of the grid spacing distance worst case with cars only from your quadrant of your one grid square.
2. "2) I negotiate the congestion getting into and then through the access point. Note: there is congestion getting into and out of the local grocery store. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that you won't have congestion accessing your system." --- Perhaps you missed the fact that the system merges the drivers under computer control think of it as a Mazdar type switching in the merge zone. Pulling into the merge zone is no more difficult than pulling into a WalMart. I do not understand how this can be any different than driving into any driveway. The congestion in the parking lot at WalMart would be solved by parking the TriTrack cars on the roof of the tilt wall construction. WalMart roofs are strong enough for snow load even though snow does not happen very often in areas where we intend to market cars initially. We put one car on each 30.5 square foot of roof. A Super WalMart holds (from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart 224,000 square feet) 7,377 cars on the roof before resorting overhangs or a second level to surface parking. The fire code clearly shows the people loading allowed in structures in case of fire. At 1.3 passengers per car that says that with no cars in the entire parking lot you would have 9,590 customers lined up to buy $4.00 prescriptions if it was still legal or safe to put that many customers in one store at one time. Lets put your language to the photograph test. Attached is a photo of WalMart from maps.google.com. I added up the cars in the parking lot and I count 456 cars at this WalMart and on a Christmas rush lets just double this to 912 to let cars park in the grass and up the street and at the neighboring business parking space. If we put TriTracks on the roof we have 8 times too many WalMart shoppers before we go double deck on the surface parking. Imagine trying to filter through the checkout lanes (which a bottleneck) with 9,590 shoppers all wanting the same popular Christmas gift. The key is you do not negotiate either parking or merging the computer does this and the computer is not restricted in how many lanes it uses to scale the WalMart tilt wall construction. We can bolt the parking trolley guideway onto that poured concrete slab anywhere we want to drill a few holes and bolt through. The "congestion" getting into the parking lot is by design by the limited number of curb cuts permitted by the city. Lets look at the unlimited curb cuts in pit-road in NASCAR for a less congested model of exiting a roadway at 35-55 mph depending on the track rules.
3. "3) Side issue: these access points are as big as if not bigger than the current access ramps to freeways in all the pics I've seen - including your system. Where are you going to put them? The access points go at the intersections of the grid lines in the city. The city would buy or take the property with eminent domain and bulldoze everything to make the merge zones. If you compare the parking lot in the supplied image you will see that one WalMart's worth of parking lot is equal to a community's worth of merge zones. If WalMart only had penny wise shoppers (which is their demographic) then they would be p[referential to buying TriTracks because they are cheaper than that airbag car you recently crashed. Probably the repair bill for fixing your air bag would pay for an entire used TriTrack. If a new TriTrack is $10,000 using the Honda civic (23,650 new ref as the rule a http://autos.yahoo.com/2009_honda_civic_hybrid_cvt_at_pzev/ used 10 years later 2899 buy it now price) used TriTrack would be about $1,226 or the price of one airbag repair or trip to get your wrist X rayed and a head scan.
4. "4) I'm now at my destination. How do I get out of my vehicle? In your system, I am literally dropped into traffic (no stations). The same is true for Kirston's car ferry. Most other systems I've seen can use SM type guideway and stations, which present a different set of problems. Both options result in congestion for some one. --- You get out just inside the WalMart where the greeter dude works and says "Welcome to WalMart". What you probably meant to ask was when do I take over driving after coming down from going really fast for 2.66 minutes. The answer is the cars come down every 1.9 seconds peak so if there are four curb cuts like in the photo each car at peak would need to leave every 7.6 seconds. Some cars will drive out following each other at 1.9 second headway and some poor or timid drivers may wait at the exit so the other three exits will need to relieve the flow around grandma. The solution to congestion is being massively parallel even as grandma exits the merge zone. How is finding yourself in the parking lot of a PRT station any different than finding yourself in a merge zone? They both need to meet flow demand. No, PRT will not get you to walking distance in our lifetimes (I am getting old fast) so you are going to have to put park-n-ride lots like WalMart at each Initial PRT station.
5. "5) We get the same problems when we go to the reverse commute. Although there should be less congestion at the home exit, since you are leaving at the same time and out pacing the surface traffic." --- Commute is only a small part of traffic flow for the day. If you observe the parking lot photo and the shadows these 456 cars are there mid day. (observe shadows) With roads left just as they are but with more capacity piled on top your fears of still having congestion are unfounded. We go from a push model to a pull model. Where can you find enough WalMart customers to fill the parking lot on the roof and where are all these customers going to come from to fill the 24 guideway lanes feeding this business address with DM? If we feed customers from all available guideway into this WalMart on the day before Christmas that would be 280,800 passengers to jam into the largest WalMart ever built at 1.253 people per square foot inside the store. Clearly a fine from the fire marshal for that one!
Does this help explain how automation might make life better?
Jerry Roane
Your claim was "which will do pretty much nothing about congestion." nothing about congestion is not 2 or 3 things that change congestion. I will now respond to your concerns.
1. "1) I leave my house in my brand new $10,000 Neighborhood Vehicle (ok, sort of a cheap shot) and drive to the DM access point." --- Thanks for buying a TriTrack. You will drive about 1/2 of the grid spacing distance worst case with cars only from your quadrant of your one grid square.
2. "2) I negotiate the congestion getting into and then through the access point. Note: there is congestion getting into and out of the local grocery store. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that you won't have congestion accessing your system." --- Perhaps you missed the fact that the system merges the drivers under computer control think of it as a Mazdar type switching in the merge zone. Pulling into the merge zone is no more difficult than pulling into a WalMart. I do not understand how this can be any different than driving into any driveway. The congestion in the parking lot at WalMart would be solved by parking the TriTrack cars on the roof of the tilt wall construction. WalMart roofs are strong enough for snow load even though snow does not happen very often in areas where we intend to market cars initially. We put one car on each 30.5 square foot of roof. A Super WalMart holds (from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart 224,000 square feet) 7,377 cars on the roof before resorting overhangs or a second level to surface parking. The fire code clearly shows the people loading allowed in structures in case of fire. At 1.3 passengers per car that says that with no cars in the entire parking lot you would have 9,590 customers lined up to buy $4.00 prescriptions if it was still legal or safe to put that many customers in one store at one time. Lets put your language to the photograph test. Attached is a photo of WalMart from maps.google.com. I added up the cars in the parking lot and I count 456 cars at this WalMart and on a Christmas rush lets just double this to 912 to let cars park in the grass and up the street and at the neighboring business parking space. If we put TriTracks on the roof we have 8 times too many WalMart shoppers before we go double deck on the surface parking. Imagine trying to filter through the checkout lanes (which a bottleneck) with 9,590 shoppers all wanting the same popular Christmas gift. The key is you do not negotiate either parking or merging the computer does this and the computer is not restricted in how many lanes it uses to scale the WalMart tilt wall construction. We can bolt the parking trolley guideway onto that poured concrete slab anywhere we want to drill a few holes and bolt through. The "congestion" getting into the parking lot is by design by the limited number of curb cuts permitted by the city. Lets look at the unlimited curb cuts in pit-road in NASCAR for a less congested model of exiting a roadway at 35-55 mph depending on the track rules.
3. "3) Side issue: these access points are as big as if not bigger than the current access ramps to freeways in all the pics I've seen - including your system. Where are you going to put them? The access points go at the intersections of the grid lines in the city. The city would buy or take the property with eminent domain and bulldoze everything to make the merge zones. If you compare the parking lot in the supplied image you will see that one WalMart's worth of parking lot is equal to a community's worth of merge zones. If WalMart only had penny wise shoppers (which is their demographic) then they would be p[referential to buying TriTracks because they are cheaper than that airbag car you recently crashed. Probably the repair bill for fixing your air bag would pay for an entire used TriTrack. If a new TriTrack is $10,000 using the Honda civic (23,650 new ref as the rule a http://autos.yahoo.com/2009_honda_civic_hybrid_cvt_at_pzev/ used 10 years later 2899 buy it now price) used TriTrack would be about $1,226 or the price of one airbag repair or trip to get your wrist X rayed and a head scan.
4. "4) I'm now at my destination. How do I get out of my vehicle? In your system, I am literally dropped into traffic (no stations). The same is true for Kirston's car ferry. Most other systems I've seen can use SM type guideway and stations, which present a different set of problems. Both options result in congestion for some one. --- You get out just inside the WalMart where the greeter dude works and says "Welcome to WalMart". What you probably meant to ask was when do I take over driving after coming down from going really fast for 2.66 minutes. The answer is the cars come down every 1.9 seconds peak so if there are four curb cuts like in the photo each car at peak would need to leave every 7.6 seconds. Some cars will drive out following each other at 1.9 second headway and some poor or timid drivers may wait at the exit so the other three exits will need to relieve the flow around grandma. The solution to congestion is being massively parallel even as grandma exits the merge zone. How is finding yourself in the parking lot of a PRT station any different than finding yourself in a merge zone? They both need to meet flow demand. No, PRT will not get you to walking distance in our lifetimes (I am getting old fast) so you are going to have to put park-n-ride lots like WalMart at each Initial PRT station.
5. "5) We get the same problems when we go to the reverse commute. Although there should be less congestion at the home exit, since you are leaving at the same time and out pacing the surface traffic." --- Commute is only a small part of traffic flow for the day. If you observe the parking lot photo and the shadows these 456 cars are there mid day. (observe shadows) With roads left just as they are but with more capacity piled on top your fears of still having congestion are unfounded. We go from a push model to a pull model. Where can you find enough WalMart customers to fill the parking lot on the roof and where are all these customers going to come from to fill the 24 guideway lanes feeding this business address with DM? If we feed customers from all available guideway into this WalMart on the day before Christmas that would be 280,800 passengers to jam into the largest WalMart ever built at 1.253 people per square foot inside the store. Clearly a fine from the fire marshal for that one!
Does this help explain how automation might make life better?
Jerry Roane
Jerry Schneider
Jun 29, 2009, 5:51:52 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jerry R,
Do you envision that no inspection of the vehicle and driver would be
required before entering your system?
Jerry S.
Jerry Roane
Jun 29, 2009, 6:45:13 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jerry
Yes our car will have full diagnostics running all the time. There would be no difference between any one moment and another will full scan as the normal control loop in a parallel computing network. Microprocessors are dirt cheap as well as sensor devices so doing a constant sweep of the operation of the car is not difficult or expensive. The inspection complaint from the 1970s is diminished by advancements in computer technology. I believe that was a red herring thrown out a long time ago but statistically has no validity. Transforming that to the highway. My Chevy HHR panel has 13,400 miles on it and I have never inspected anything on the car ever. The dashboard tells me when to change the oil and other than that there is nothing worth inspecting. As failures happen they typically put out warning sounds and vibrations. Our system will be listening and feeling for problems and at the start of a big problem we will most likely be able to get it repaired before full failure. The merge zone will waive off cars who's self-diagnostics say to. The constant maintenance schedule modeled after aircraft not cars will replace key components before their expected average lifetime is over. I understand the power of the complaint but I discount it greatly. If anyone has a mathematically sound reason to believe that a man standing at the merge zone "inspecting" cars would make any difference I would be very interested.
Jerry Roane
Yes our car will have full diagnostics running all the time. There would be no difference between any one moment and another will full scan as the normal control loop in a parallel computing network. Microprocessors are dirt cheap as well as sensor devices so doing a constant sweep of the operation of the car is not difficult or expensive. The inspection complaint from the 1970s is diminished by advancements in computer technology. I believe that was a red herring thrown out a long time ago but statistically has no validity. Transforming that to the highway. My Chevy HHR panel has 13,400 miles on it and I have never inspected anything on the car ever. The dashboard tells me when to change the oil and other than that there is nothing worth inspecting. As failures happen they typically put out warning sounds and vibrations. Our system will be listening and feeling for problems and at the start of a big problem we will most likely be able to get it repaired before full failure. The merge zone will waive off cars who's self-diagnostics say to. The constant maintenance schedule modeled after aircraft not cars will replace key components before their expected average lifetime is over. I understand the power of the complaint but I discount it greatly. If anyone has a mathematically sound reason to believe that a man standing at the merge zone "inspecting" cars would make any difference I would be very interested.
Jerry Roane
Jerry Schneider
Jun 29, 2009, 7:51:53 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
At 03:45 PM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
>Jerry
>
>Yes our car will have full diagnostics running all the time. There
>would be no difference between any one moment and another will full
>scan as the normal control loop in a parallel computing
>network. Microprocessors are dirt cheap as well as sensor devices
>so doing a constant sweep of the operation of the car is not
>difficult or expensive. The inspection complaint from the 1970s is
>diminished by advancements in computer technology. I believe that
>was a red herring thrown out a long time ago but statistically has
>no validity. Transforming that to the highway. My Chevy HHR panel
>has 13,400 miles on it and I have never inspected anything on the
>car ever. The dashboard tells me when to change the oil and other
>than that there is nothing worth inspecting. As failures happen
>they typically put out warning sounds and vibrations. Our system
>will be listening and feeling for problems and at the start of a big
>problem we will most likely be able to get it repaired before full
>failure. The merge zone will waive off cars who's self-diagnostics
>say to. The constant maintenance schedule modeled after aircraft
>not cars will replace key components before their expected average
>lifetime is over. I understand the power of the complaint but I
>discount it greatly. If anyone has a mathematically sound reason to
>believe that a man standing at the merge zone "inspecting" cars
>would make any difference I would be very interested.
>Jerry
>
>Yes our car will have full diagnostics running all the time. There
>would be no difference between any one moment and another will full
>scan as the normal control loop in a parallel computing
>network. Microprocessors are dirt cheap as well as sensor devices
>so doing a constant sweep of the operation of the car is not
>difficult or expensive. The inspection complaint from the 1970s is
>diminished by advancements in computer technology. I believe that
>was a red herring thrown out a long time ago but statistically has
>no validity. Transforming that to the highway. My Chevy HHR panel
>has 13,400 miles on it and I have never inspected anything on the
>car ever. The dashboard tells me when to change the oil and other
>than that there is nothing worth inspecting. As failures happen
>they typically put out warning sounds and vibrations. Our system
>will be listening and feeling for problems and at the start of a big
>problem we will most likely be able to get it repaired before full
>failure. The merge zone will waive off cars who's self-diagnostics
>say to. The constant maintenance schedule modeled after aircraft
>not cars will replace key components before their expected average
>lifetime is over. I understand the power of the complaint but I
>discount it greatly. If anyone has a mathematically sound reason to
>believe that a man standing at the merge zone "inspecting" cars
>would make any difference I would be very interested.
How about the drivers - are they redundant totally (i.e. have no
functional role except driving to/from the system)?
Jerry Roane
Jun 29, 2009, 9:35:48 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jerry
The drivers are not redundant so limiting their speed to a non-lethal speed is probably going to stay. I actually like the idea more and more even though I am an aggressive driver (What a shocker). If the wreck you have only does paint damage, no harm no foul, and I get to sell the bad driver more parts to fix his car. He will either go broke sending me money ;-) or he will improve his driving. Most bad drivers can handle 25 mph that is truly 25 mph. If 25 produces problems we will by software upload make it 24 ... till we get it safe and bad drivers can still get where they need to go.
Jerry Roane
The drivers are not redundant so limiting their speed to a non-lethal speed is probably going to stay. I actually like the idea more and more even though I am an aggressive driver (What a shocker). If the wreck you have only does paint damage, no harm no foul, and I get to sell the bad driver more parts to fix his car. He will either go broke sending me money ;-) or he will improve his driving. Most bad drivers can handle 25 mph that is truly 25 mph. If 25 produces problems we will by software upload make it 24 ... till we get it safe and bad drivers can still get where they need to go.
Jerry Roane
Michael Weidler
Jun 29, 2009, 10:08:06 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| Nope, but it does tell me how parking at WalMart is going to be more fun. I'm sure WalMart will be enthused about your scenario because it makes their parking lot the jumping off point for the network, which is a major advantage. Speaking of jumping off: what you don't seem to get is the fact that dumping a beam riding vehicle on to surface streets which already have vehicles on them equals congestion. In order to keep from congesting the surface street, the beam riding vehicles need to stay on the beam. |
--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
Jay Andress
Jun 29, 2009, 10:09:10 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael,
I think that you bring up a good point, but one that is definitely overblown. Ed Anderson has a document attacking DM that is based on many of the same arguments. I think there are a number of technologies and points that can mitigate your concerns about congestion at entrance and exit ramps.
First, congestion is mostly on the highways, not on the entrance and exit ramps. There are statistics to confirm this. This is why they have stop lights on some of the entrance ramps to highways (if congestion wasn't primarily on the highway itself then why would they have these lights on the entrance ramps?).
Second, the inspection process can be done on a continuing basis and there are ways to quickly inspect vehicles as they enter the system with no delay (I'm not going to mention how this is done, but we have figured it out)
Third, the entire system will be monitored and exits that are problems could be bypassed for the next exit. Drivers would know there is a problem ahead immediately as they enter the system and could make alternate plans.
Four, with a switching system it is possible that there could be multiple exits (proper planning would determine how many branch exits are necessary).
Five, many of the vehicles would never exit to the streets but would go directly into upper levels of parking structures or bypass the local roads completely and go into the shopping center parking lot. With an elevated system there are so many options.
Six, you will notice that we have designed the MonoMobile System with at least four parallel tracks. In the event of a disabled vehicle, other vehicles are quickly routed around the disabled vehicle (we have switches between tracks).
Seven, the technology of electric motors is so reliable and simple, I think experience will show that disabled vehicles will be very, very infrequent.
Eight...shit happens...you clear it up and move on. No system is perfect.
jay
Michael Weidler
Jun 29, 2009, 10:17:10 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| No one is saying "that a man standing at the merge zone "inspecting" cars would make any difference". What has been said repeatedly is that the system operator is responsible for anything which falls off these vehicles once it is on the guideway. It will take a change in tort law to make this go away. |
--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 3:45 PM |
|
|
Jerry Roane
Jun 29, 2009, 11:52:39 PM6/29/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael
"have vehicles on them." You will need to quantify the number of cars and then you will see that the cross traffic is subtracted from the number passing the exits back to the street. I suggest you re-read the WalMart parts. I never said WalMart parking lots were the merge zones. I was trying to put it in terms you could grasp by using the entrance to the parking lot as a familiar thing drivers do. After you subtract the cross traffic cars that are now buzzing by at high speed overhead where do you suggest the spare cars will appear from to create your imagined surface street traffic congestion? If you can not figure it out I have nothing further for you.
Jerry Roane
"have vehicles on them." You will need to quantify the number of cars and then you will see that the cross traffic is subtracted from the number passing the exits back to the street. I suggest you re-read the WalMart parts. I never said WalMart parking lots were the merge zones. I was trying to put it in terms you could grasp by using the entrance to the parking lot as a familiar thing drivers do. After you subtract the cross traffic cars that are now buzzing by at high speed overhead where do you suggest the spare cars will appear from to create your imagined surface street traffic congestion? If you can not figure it out I have nothing further for you.
Jerry Roane
Michael Weidler
Jun 30, 2009, 2:15:14 AM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| 1) Really? I guess the highways in OH are different than the highways in Pittsburgh PA, Wash DC, Atlanta GA, or Seattle WA then. As far as I can recall, the only one with ramp lights when I drove there was Seattle. The lights didn't seem to have any particular relation to the traffic. Maybe they were supposed to, but they sure didn't seem to. They seemed be more to make sure that entering vehicles stopped so they didn't get clobbered by vehicles zipping by on the main line. The lights definitely caused congestion on the ramps. Exactly why, do you think, does congestion happen on the main line? It happens because someone is trying to either get on or get off or otherwise change lanes on the main line causing someone else to brake. This braking propagates in a manner similar to a wave in water. 2) Congratulations. 3) And how have you magically removed all of the other vehicles from the surface roads between where you are forcing your customer to exit and where he wants to be? Dumping them into traffic is dumping them into traffic. 4) Which drops them into traffic. 5) Good idea! I think Jerry R has mentioned something to this effect now and again. I don't see how it would work on his system, but it's a good idea. If ALL privately owned DM vehicles go directly to parking garages and the occupants have to walk to their final destination from there, I'm good with it. Obviously in this scenario, the owner must physically go to the parking garage to retrieve his vehicle. 6) More parallel tracks (groan). I don't think you have any greater chance of installing parallel tracks than Jerry R will. 7) You could well be right about electric motors. When do all of these electric motor driven light weight vehicles appear in sufficient quantity to justify installing DM guideway? 8) That will make the attorneys happy. --- On Mon, 6/29/09, Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Michael Weidler
Jun 30, 2009, 3:01:11 AM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| Buzzing by to where?!?!?!? I'm talking about "activity centers" for lack of a better term. A business park? Downtown? Anyplace else where people need to come together to carry out some procedure or business? Nobody is "zipping by". Everybody is trying to get to essentially the same place. The people coming by ground are going to the same 10 blocks that the people coming off your guideway are going. If your cars come off the guideway, there will be congestion on the ground. 5+5, 6+4, 7+3, they all equal 10. In other words, it doesn't matter how they are coming if they are all coming to the same place at the same time using the same surface roads. Your system drops your customers on to the same surface roads as normal traffic. |
--- On Mon, 6/29/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 8:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Brewer
Jun 30, 2009, 10:36:15 AM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael,
Surely you noticed the ones on most freeways
in San Diego?
Indeed their attempt is to maintain smooth
flow on the main highway under high demand conditions; frequently in So. CA
where demand usually exceeds capacity. Thus backup occurs at the light
controlled on ramps. Most on ramps in CA at least sense highway traffic and
adjust green light timing accordingly. They could do better if a segment of a
few miles is analyzed, and several lights adjusted intelligently to optimize
flow. Funds have prevented this so far, but there is still a net advantage to on
ramp management. I didn't used to think so. I was driving around LA when they
were first introduced with light sequence based on time of day based on typical
traffic counts. Many empty slots would pass before entry was allowed. Newer are
much better, and most are turned off off peak. (of which there is little in
LA!) Some on ramps have favored timing for car pools.
The most intelligent would allow just enough
access to slow ave speeds down to about 55 mph. That provides the most highway
throughput, and would also reduce on ramp backup. This is not a popular option
however as it risks developing flow instability and stop/go.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----From: Michael Weidler
Jay Andress
Jun 30, 2009, 11:31:24 AM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael,
1)They are widely used in Southern California, the capital of traffic jams. I imagine that you never biked around southern California on the freeways...not a good idea.
2) Thanks for acknowledging
3) If traffic at the off-ramp is bad enough that it backs up the off ramp of the track then the system reacts. If the traffic does not back up the ramp then I guess it isn't that bad.
4)same as three above
5)Thanks again
6)The total width of four parallel tracks is lees than 32 feet
7)Actually our first system breaks-even with relatively few vehicles, less than 20,000 trips per day by 10,000 vehicles.
8)What's new...the second oldest profession needs to make a living somehow.
Jay
new contact info: jay.a...@monomobile.com
Jerry Schneider
Jun 30, 2009, 12:03:46 PM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
At 06:35 PM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
>Jerry
>
>Jerry
>
>The drivers are not redundant so limiting their speed to a
>non-lethal speed is probably going to stay. I actually like the
>idea more and more even though I am an aggressive driver (What a
>shocker). If the wreck you have only does paint damage, no harm no
>foul, and I get to sell the bad driver more parts to fix his
>car. He will either go broke sending me money ;-) or he will
>improve his driving. Most bad drivers can handle 25 mph that is
>truly 25 mph. If 25 produces problems we will by software upload
>make it 24 ... till we get it safe and bad drivers can still get
>where they need to go.
>non-lethal speed is probably going to stay. I actually like the
>idea more and more even though I am an aggressive driver (What a
>shocker). If the wreck you have only does paint damage, no harm no
>foul, and I get to sell the bad driver more parts to fix his
>car. He will either go broke sending me money ;-) or he will
>improve his driving. Most bad drivers can handle 25 mph that is
>truly 25 mph. If 25 produces problems we will by software upload
>make it 24 ... till we get it safe and bad drivers can still get
>where they need to go.
I was thinking more about getting on and off the system and any
enroute responsibilities that an impaired driver might need to perform.
Jerry Roane
Jun 30, 2009, 12:51:04 PM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael
Now I know what you were describing. In our Austin initial layout we show 104 grid line intersections of roughly 100 guideway segments covering the metropolitan area. Of these 104 over passing guideway routes 1 is in a downtown. If we forget the 103 and go after the one lost sheep (sounds very Biblical to me) in the downtown then your vision is easier to understand. Your vision is centered around the center not around the other 103 places I was talking about. In the 1 location what is required is a tight connection between the central routing computer suggested routes on your dashboard and the parking trolley automated valet parking. Each 106 story building (Taipei 101 is owned by the Taipei Financial Center Corporation and managed by the International division of Urban Retail Properties Corporation based in Chicago. ..."a world center where earth and sky meet and the four compass directions join.") will need to feed its population from several guideways. Taipei Tower takes 2.5 hours to emergency evacuate the people from this building so valet parking for all these folks emptying in 2.5 hours (down to 57 minutes using the elevators they are not normally allowed to use during fire) seems like the most they can pump to us. This bit of urban heaven is 20% empty now so we can leave off some parking trolleys till they manage to find willing renters. Full is 15,000 so today they have around 12,000 people who live and work there. They already have an on demand 37 mph trolley system inside so we only have to match the capacity of this trolley system (elevators). 57 minutes was the evacuation drill I found so they must have only had 12,000 people in the 57 minute test using elevators and stairs. The flow being 11,400 per hour in full emergency mode. That allows us to jam 6 passengers into our 4 passenger cars in this activity. With 18 guideways we move 747,691 people per hour so as the occupants of the Taipei Tower exit the flow-restricting doorways we can take all the evacuees away in .015 hours to their 57 minutes. Quite a mismatch in flow capacity. If a few of the 5 basement levels (which don't rent out well) are used for parking your private TriTrack decked out to your luxury tastes since the renters are all mega-rich banker types you seem to want to kiss up to in the urban reality, then we can park cars and retrieve cars as fast as the doorways can expel occupants with their hair partially on fire. In the urban dream the banker lives in the penthouse and his international bank office is on the 85th floor so he never leaves the elevator system and any service provided by TriTrack would be to take him to his vacation flight once a year if his company lets him have vacation that often. Which business park owner do you want to make rich? Pick the developer you desire to make rich and we can build a transportation system that improves his property value and rents. Why do you advocate for the few landlords who own downtown real estate to get richer by centering on the center? It seems like the other goals you have are for yourself to have a better life and not a few ultra rich.
Here in my world, WalMart is the activity center and I beat that horse till it was dead and stinky.
One more attempt: The parking trolleys will be of increased density to match the building emergency evacuation flow maximum. There is no reason to design for a flow that cannot be supplied. The central router will route all the way to the parking spot so when your dashboard says turn left all you have to do is turn left and life will be sweet.
Jerry Roane
Now I know what you were describing. In our Austin initial layout we show 104 grid line intersections of roughly 100 guideway segments covering the metropolitan area. Of these 104 over passing guideway routes 1 is in a downtown. If we forget the 103 and go after the one lost sheep (sounds very Biblical to me) in the downtown then your vision is easier to understand. Your vision is centered around the center not around the other 103 places I was talking about. In the 1 location what is required is a tight connection between the central routing computer suggested routes on your dashboard and the parking trolley automated valet parking. Each 106 story building (Taipei 101 is owned by the Taipei Financial Center Corporation and managed by the International division of Urban Retail Properties Corporation based in Chicago. ..."a world center where earth and sky meet and the four compass directions join.") will need to feed its population from several guideways. Taipei Tower takes 2.5 hours to emergency evacuate the people from this building so valet parking for all these folks emptying in 2.5 hours (down to 57 minutes using the elevators they are not normally allowed to use during fire) seems like the most they can pump to us. This bit of urban heaven is 20% empty now so we can leave off some parking trolleys till they manage to find willing renters. Full is 15,000 so today they have around 12,000 people who live and work there. They already have an on demand 37 mph trolley system inside so we only have to match the capacity of this trolley system (elevators). 57 minutes was the evacuation drill I found so they must have only had 12,000 people in the 57 minute test using elevators and stairs. The flow being 11,400 per hour in full emergency mode. That allows us to jam 6 passengers into our 4 passenger cars in this activity. With 18 guideways we move 747,691 people per hour so as the occupants of the Taipei Tower exit the flow-restricting doorways we can take all the evacuees away in .015 hours to their 57 minutes. Quite a mismatch in flow capacity. If a few of the 5 basement levels (which don't rent out well) are used for parking your private TriTrack decked out to your luxury tastes since the renters are all mega-rich banker types you seem to want to kiss up to in the urban reality, then we can park cars and retrieve cars as fast as the doorways can expel occupants with their hair partially on fire. In the urban dream the banker lives in the penthouse and his international bank office is on the 85th floor so he never leaves the elevator system and any service provided by TriTrack would be to take him to his vacation flight once a year if his company lets him have vacation that often. Which business park owner do you want to make rich? Pick the developer you desire to make rich and we can build a transportation system that improves his property value and rents. Why do you advocate for the few landlords who own downtown real estate to get richer by centering on the center? It seems like the other goals you have are for yourself to have a better life and not a few ultra rich.
Here in my world, WalMart is the activity center and I beat that horse till it was dead and stinky.
One more attempt: The parking trolleys will be of increased density to match the building emergency evacuation flow maximum. There is no reason to design for a flow that cannot be supplied. The central router will route all the way to the parking spot so when your dashboard says turn left all you have to do is turn left and life will be sweet.
Jerry Roane
Jerry Roane
Jun 30, 2009, 3:30:42 PM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jerry
Each time you attempt to operate the TriTrack it is going to give you a coordination test. If you pass the test your car will go. If you fail the coordination test it will be logged and you will be retested. If you mess up enough we will call a cab for you. In a system where speed is high, the time a taxi driver spends on one customer is reduced making a private taxi ride affordable. In Texas we have signs posted around by TxDot that say:
DWI you cannot afford it! I believe that driving impaired is not a good idea as it puts your short term needs above the life of others. While someone is impaired they should find someone to look after them. The level of impairment then becomes the issue. If you have a disability that still leaves you with vision and reasonable reaction time such that you can push a joystick and navigate your driveway and city block then you should be able to drive a TriTrack car from your wheelchair using your wheelchair joystick. I guess to answer your question I would need to better define impairment case by case. My wife's grandfather was the high school principle for 40 years in his little town in LA (not Los Angeles) and everyone knew him and when he drove his Cadillac at 12 mph on the wrong side of the road everyone just got out of his way. He managed to never dent his Caddy but he was not the best driver in his declining years. It would have been better for his safety and the safety of his students that were all grown up if he had asked for someone to drive him to his dialyses each week in his last years. This impairment would probably be over the line for TriTrack even at 25 mph since evidence says that 12 mph turned out to be relatively dent free. For those who are intentionally drunk --- I have no sympathy. Get sober and do us all a favor.
The guideway portion is all hands free but you do need to go the last part on the street. It is possible that you could ask the system to park your car at the merge zone and walk/stagger home but that is probably not going to go well either since in polite society it is illegal to be publicly intoxicated. If the impairment is not self induced alcohol excess then walking home is probably a good solution. This would be very much like pure PRT with the station (merge zone) being your contract parking garage. We are open to any solution and the name means nothing really.
Jerry Roane
Each time you attempt to operate the TriTrack it is going to give you a coordination test. If you pass the test your car will go. If you fail the coordination test it will be logged and you will be retested. If you mess up enough we will call a cab for you. In a system where speed is high, the time a taxi driver spends on one customer is reduced making a private taxi ride affordable. In Texas we have signs posted around by TxDot that say:
DWI you cannot afford it! I believe that driving impaired is not a good idea as it puts your short term needs above the life of others. While someone is impaired they should find someone to look after them. The level of impairment then becomes the issue. If you have a disability that still leaves you with vision and reasonable reaction time such that you can push a joystick and navigate your driveway and city block then you should be able to drive a TriTrack car from your wheelchair using your wheelchair joystick. I guess to answer your question I would need to better define impairment case by case. My wife's grandfather was the high school principle for 40 years in his little town in LA (not Los Angeles) and everyone knew him and when he drove his Cadillac at 12 mph on the wrong side of the road everyone just got out of his way. He managed to never dent his Caddy but he was not the best driver in his declining years. It would have been better for his safety and the safety of his students that were all grown up if he had asked for someone to drive him to his dialyses each week in his last years. This impairment would probably be over the line for TriTrack even at 25 mph since evidence says that 12 mph turned out to be relatively dent free. For those who are intentionally drunk --- I have no sympathy. Get sober and do us all a favor.
The guideway portion is all hands free but you do need to go the last part on the street. It is possible that you could ask the system to park your car at the merge zone and walk/stagger home but that is probably not going to go well either since in polite society it is illegal to be publicly intoxicated. If the impairment is not self induced alcohol excess then walking home is probably a good solution. This would be very much like pure PRT with the station (merge zone) being your contract parking garage. We are open to any solution and the name means nothing really.
Jerry Roane
Jerry Schneider
Jun 30, 2009, 5:56:18 PM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
At 12:30 PM 6/30/2009, Jerry R. wrote:
>snip -------------------
customers. What is your responsibility, if you are the system
operator or owner? And, there are other disabilities to consider.
If you don't prevent them from using the system, and they do
something that wrecks their vehicle, themselves or others, what would
your liability be, if you are the system operator or owner? Maybe
they could not do anything to wreck themselves or others, once they
get on the system. I don't know. However, if they can, then it seems
to me that they must be prevented from using the system.
>Jerry Roane
>
>On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jerry Schneider
><<mailto:j...@peak.org>j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>At 06:35 PM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
> >Jerry
> >
> >The drivers are not redundant so limiting their speed to a
> >non-lethal speed is probably going to stay. I actually like the
> >idea more and more even though I am an aggressive driver (What a
> >shocker). If the wreck you have only does paint damage, no harm no
> >foul, and I get to sell the bad driver more parts to fix his
> >car. He will either go broke sending me money ;-) or he will
> >improve his driving. Most bad drivers can handle 25 mph that is
> >truly 25 mph. If 25 produces problems we will by software upload
> >make it 24 ... till we get it safe and bad drivers can still get
> >where they need to go.
>
>I was thinking more about getting on and off the system and any
>enroute responsibilities that an impaired driver might need to perform.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>snip -------------------
>The guideway portion is all hands free but you do need to go the
>last part on the street. It is possible that you could ask the
>system to park your car at the merge zone and walk/stagger home but
>that is probably not going to go well either since in polite society
>it is illegal to be publicly intoxicated. If the impairment is not
>self induced alcohol excess then walking home is probably a good
>solution. This would be very much like pure PRT with the station
>(merge zone) being your contract parking garage. We are open to any
>solution and the name means nothing really.
Drunks and people on drugs, etc. are likely to be among your
>last part on the street. It is possible that you could ask the
>system to park your car at the merge zone and walk/stagger home but
>that is probably not going to go well either since in polite society
>it is illegal to be publicly intoxicated. If the impairment is not
>self induced alcohol excess then walking home is probably a good
>solution. This would be very much like pure PRT with the station
>(merge zone) being your contract parking garage. We are open to any
>solution and the name means nothing really.
customers. What is your responsibility, if you are the system
operator or owner? And, there are other disabilities to consider.
If you don't prevent them from using the system, and they do
something that wrecks their vehicle, themselves or others, what would
your liability be, if you are the system operator or owner? Maybe
they could not do anything to wreck themselves or others, once they
get on the system. I don't know. However, if they can, then it seems
to me that they must be prevented from using the system.
>Jerry Roane
>
>On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jerry Schneider
><<mailto:j...@peak.org>j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>At 06:35 PM 6/29/2009, you wrote:
> >Jerry
> >
> >The drivers are not redundant so limiting their speed to a
> >non-lethal speed is probably going to stay. I actually like the
> >idea more and more even though I am an aggressive driver (What a
> >shocker). If the wreck you have only does paint damage, no harm no
> >foul, and I get to sell the bad driver more parts to fix his
> >car. He will either go broke sending me money ;-) or he will
> >improve his driving. Most bad drivers can handle 25 mph that is
> >truly 25 mph. If 25 produces problems we will by software upload
> >make it 24 ... till we get it safe and bad drivers can still get
> >where they need to go.
>
>I was thinking more about getting on and off the system and any
>enroute responsibilities that an impaired driver might need to perform.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Jerry Roane
Jun 30, 2009, 7:29:20 PM6/30/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jerry
You are asking a loaded question of course. The nation is in a death grip of litigation but so far the automobile makers are not held responsible for the actions of their cars driven by drunks. We would of course buy the normal manfacturer's product liability insurance. Since we do not have deep pockets no self respecting lawyer will bother going after me. They would be able to go after my insurance company for the amount of coverage and I am sure I would be listed on the suit but you know --- That does not scare me at all. I will ask for a jury of my peers and take what comes.
What street level switching does if you want to call driving on streets "switching" is it shifts the legal liability from me to the streets which are owned and "operated" by the city, county, state or federal government. The rules of the road are well established and the legal precedent is well established on who pays for what in a street collision. It clogs up our court system for sure with the large number of collisions but the judges all know what to expect and clearly where the lines are drawn. I can imagine that if I pull a Ford/Firestone and blame my tire makers for bad tires and they blame me that a customer who turned upside down and was crushed to death by his SUV or TriTrack could sue or at least his widow. My liability will be to build the best car I know how to build and if I find out one of my suppliers is a slacker regardless of their family affiliation or intermarrying that I would change the bad part and recall all dangerous parts from the field. Since the guideway is swallowed by the car's body and cannot come off till it gets to the opposite end of that piece of guideway that is either 2 miles 4 miles 8 miles or 16 miles long the chance of my system's ability to crash your car in your allotted time slot is pretty small. Each car is autonomous on the guideway so in the event of a failure or hopefully a double failure the system would remain safe. In extraordinary series of events that could defeat the safety system the driver is still responsible for jamming on the emergency brakes because he is still driving but under cruise control essentially. If the big three decide that I am a threat all this legal protection may disappear but I am a big enough sucker to accept the risk that they may come after me when they understand how inadequate their product is compared to a clean running fast one. In history the big three have been brutal to any American who dared start a car company. Somehow though they let the imports slide in here and wreak havoc on their profitability. In their weakened state I think I have the best chance in history to slide in under the radar and remain stealth till it is too late for them to catch up. If I may be so bold.
On the guideway traveling at 180 mph they can pull the emergency stop and as you point out they will. In the case of a hard stop we will knock the shit out of them with the lap bar so they will be very very sore when they sober up and the person behind them on the guideway may be physically bruised and pick up some road rash as the safety pad stretches around their skin. I would imagine that at night when the drunks are more prevalent that the following distance could easily be increased as a precaution and the severity of the following car passenger and driver being hurt by some idiot drunk in the lead car could be much less. I think if a drunk has his video image pulling the emergency stop lever in court that my liability would be minimal and the drunk would be carted off to jail. The second and third persons in the line behind him my be laying in wait when he gets out of jail though. That encounter may leave more dents in his head than our safety padded bar.
To repeat we avoid litigation as much as possible on purpose. I cannot imagine the legal liability that a pure PRT vendor will have when they switch a car into another car. The possibilities for damage claims would be greater if you take on the responsibility for the switch hardware not malfunctioning. Possibly you could set up an LLP that manufacturers the switch and another legal entity that writes the switch software and the lawyers would have a harder time pinning down how much each LLP has to pay. This is not to say that every transportation system does not pose a threat to the bank account. This is just a fact of life and the reason Swiss Bank business is brisk.
Jerry Roane
You are asking a loaded question of course. The nation is in a death grip of litigation but so far the automobile makers are not held responsible for the actions of their cars driven by drunks. We would of course buy the normal manfacturer's product liability insurance. Since we do not have deep pockets no self respecting lawyer will bother going after me. They would be able to go after my insurance company for the amount of coverage and I am sure I would be listed on the suit but you know --- That does not scare me at all. I will ask for a jury of my peers and take what comes.
What street level switching does if you want to call driving on streets "switching" is it shifts the legal liability from me to the streets which are owned and "operated" by the city, county, state or federal government. The rules of the road are well established and the legal precedent is well established on who pays for what in a street collision. It clogs up our court system for sure with the large number of collisions but the judges all know what to expect and clearly where the lines are drawn. I can imagine that if I pull a Ford/Firestone and blame my tire makers for bad tires and they blame me that a customer who turned upside down and was crushed to death by his SUV or TriTrack could sue or at least his widow. My liability will be to build the best car I know how to build and if I find out one of my suppliers is a slacker regardless of their family affiliation or intermarrying that I would change the bad part and recall all dangerous parts from the field. Since the guideway is swallowed by the car's body and cannot come off till it gets to the opposite end of that piece of guideway that is either 2 miles 4 miles 8 miles or 16 miles long the chance of my system's ability to crash your car in your allotted time slot is pretty small. Each car is autonomous on the guideway so in the event of a failure or hopefully a double failure the system would remain safe. In extraordinary series of events that could defeat the safety system the driver is still responsible for jamming on the emergency brakes because he is still driving but under cruise control essentially. If the big three decide that I am a threat all this legal protection may disappear but I am a big enough sucker to accept the risk that they may come after me when they understand how inadequate their product is compared to a clean running fast one. In history the big three have been brutal to any American who dared start a car company. Somehow though they let the imports slide in here and wreak havoc on their profitability. In their weakened state I think I have the best chance in history to slide in under the radar and remain stealth till it is too late for them to catch up. If I may be so bold.
On the guideway traveling at 180 mph they can pull the emergency stop and as you point out they will. In the case of a hard stop we will knock the shit out of them with the lap bar so they will be very very sore when they sober up and the person behind them on the guideway may be physically bruised and pick up some road rash as the safety pad stretches around their skin. I would imagine that at night when the drunks are more prevalent that the following distance could easily be increased as a precaution and the severity of the following car passenger and driver being hurt by some idiot drunk in the lead car could be much less. I think if a drunk has his video image pulling the emergency stop lever in court that my liability would be minimal and the drunk would be carted off to jail. The second and third persons in the line behind him my be laying in wait when he gets out of jail though. That encounter may leave more dents in his head than our safety padded bar.
To repeat we avoid litigation as much as possible on purpose. I cannot imagine the legal liability that a pure PRT vendor will have when they switch a car into another car. The possibilities for damage claims would be greater if you take on the responsibility for the switch hardware not malfunctioning. Possibly you could set up an LLP that manufacturers the switch and another legal entity that writes the switch software and the lawyers would have a harder time pinning down how much each LLP has to pay. This is not to say that every transportation system does not pose a threat to the bank account. This is just a fact of life and the reason Swiss Bank business is brisk.
Jerry Roane
Michael Weidler
Jul 1, 2009, 12:44:56 AM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| I didn't do any driving in San Diego. I had a girlfriend who lived somewhere near Miramar and I don't recall any access lights on I-15. --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> wrote: |
|
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 7:36 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
Jul 1, 2009, 12:57:11 AM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| I wish it was permitted to use the freeways to bike. I very much prefer a 12ft wide smooth concrete path to the inches wide "ROW" bikes have on the supposedly safer side roads. Also, people are more intent on getting to where they are going on freeways, so they don't slow down to hassle me. As to items 3&4, you still aren't getting the point. It is not a matter of whether vehicles coming off your system back up onto your ramps. It is a matter of the fact that there will be other vehicles on the surface roads onto which your vehicles need to exit and travel upon in order to get to their actual destination. As I told Jerry R, 5+5, 6+4, 7+3 they all equal 10. The ONLY way DM will not contribute to congestion is if Item 5 is the normal mode of operation. Once a DM vehicle comes off the guideway, it is part of the problem - not the solution. |
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 8:31 AM |
|
Dennis Manning
Jul 1, 2009, 1:04:34 AM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
The length of time that the freeway people have
taken to work on ramp metering (they have been at it for at least 30 years) is a
good example of how hopeless the ITS approach is. Morphing the existing freeways
into running with fully automated vehicles would take 50 years or more. In the
meantime of course PRT is achieving full automation now. The possibility for
rapid growth of PRT is far more compelling than incremental changes to the
existing system. The pity of course is how much gov't funding has been devoted
to ITS versus PRT.
I've mentioned the analogy many times, but it's
analogous to AT&T trying to goose their copper network in the face of the
fiber/wireless Internet. We are to transportation as the Internet is to
communications.
Michael Weidler
Jul 1, 2009, 1:18:54 AM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about evacuating buildings? I am interested in getting to work in DT Seattle, DT Pittsburgh, the Oakland area of Pittsburgh, DT DC, Bethesda, Tyson Corner, Anywhere in Atlanta. I don't care if you can evacuate a skyscraper with your system. I don't care that you have plans for a parking valet. I do care that if the vehicles which use your beams EVER come off those beams on to the surface streets you have not done one damn thing for congestion. You have simply queue jumped your clients. If that rambling exposition below is supposed to be telling me that you can park vehicles without EVER leaving the guideway, then good. I have no further complaints regarding congestion. |
--- On Tue, 6/30/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2009, 9:51 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Brewer
Jul 1, 2009, 9:09:48 AM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
For the record, all I-15 ramps have lights, at
least as far as Escondido north.
They seem to be adjusted according to freeway
flow, and turned off off peak.
Walter Brewer
Jul 1, 2009, 9:18:35 AM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Not to defend intelligent ramp metering as
preferable to PRT. However probably something in the order of 20%
throughput range improvement could be achieved with an intelligently
linked system. The info is already being recorded. What is needed is a
computerized processing on the major segment scale of 10 to 20 miles to
optimuzed for max throughput, correct for incidents, etc etc. There
are some in Caltrans who have thought this through, but funding does not
appear. Better to buy more streetcars!
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----From: Dennis Manning
Jay Andress
Jul 1, 2009, 11:28:36 AM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael,
The point is that congestion is not primarily occuring where you think it is occurring. The biggest congestion problems are on the highways and DM will definately take care of that problem.
Second, you seem to be stuck on an outdated central city based understanding of urban areas...perhaps you go downntown for work but the reality is that transportation patterns are throughout the metroploitan area and even beyond. The congestion is most likely to occur on the roads between points than at destinations,
Third, the design of the MonoMobile system has many things that will mitigate the problem you complain about, computer control of entire system and branching of exits.
Fourth, you are completely ignoring point eight.
Fifth,theoretically your point is valid...if you add one car to local traffic you aren't helping congestion...but with DM you are attacking the congestion issue where it is the biggest problem....on the highways.
Jay
Walter Brewer
Jul 1, 2009, 12:58:18 PM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
And while it is desirable to encourage fuel
efficient cars, they are not helping to reduce congestion.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----From: Jay AndressSent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:28 AMSubject: [t-i] Re: DM vs SM yet again....
Dennis Manning
Jul 1, 2009, 2:42:33 PM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Awhile back there was some discussion about whether
TOD supporters actually wanted to see higher auto congestion. This is an excerpt
from the "Transit Coalition" newsletter. They are in the LA area.
The nation's stimulus program isn't
doing much for mass transit, according to Smart
Growth America. So far states have spent 94% on road creation or road
maintenance projects and roughly 1% on public transportation projects. In
California, of the transportation stimulus money being spent on roads, 57% has
gone to maintenance and 43% on road creation. While these projects will
certainly create jobs, they will do little to reduce our dependency on foreign
oil, improve air quality, reduce sprawl and provide an alternative to
congestion.
It's the last line that's an indication. They don't
promote "congestion reduction" they promote "an alternative to congestion".
Hmmm.
Dennis
Walter Brewer
Jul 1, 2009, 4:40:05 PM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
This "choice" approach has been the
rationalization for San Diogo spending 1/3 its total transportation budget for
over 20 years on mass transit. "Choice" is the stock response if leaders
are challenged to explain this. No matter "built it they will come" hasn't and
won't work.
Walt Brewer
----- Original Message -----From: Dennis Manning
Michael Weidler
Jul 1, 2009, 4:54:36 PM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| Well that explains it. She worked second shift, so we were rarely if ever on I-15 during peak (plus we were usually headed counter-flow). I guess the lights are not very noticeable when not in operation. |
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Walter Brewer <catc...@verizon.net> wrote: |
|
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
Jul 1, 2009, 6:21:36 PM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| Jay, Rent a hot air balloon (or a blimp) and hover over Columbus starting at 4:30am. You'll want to be up a couple of thousand feet so you can see everything at once. Stay there until peak is done around 10am. Then report back to me what you witness. Care to bet that you'll witness waves of stoppages emanating from merge areas? Wanna guess where these merge areas are located? I've had many occasions to drive I-71 north of Columbus over the years (have an aunt in Springfield). I notice that once you get a few miles out from the beltway congestion disappears. There is still bumper to bumper traffic, but it is traveling at speed. And it stays that way until Akron. Hmm, congestion in the "activity center" called Columbus and in the "activity center" called Akron, but none in between. |
--- On Wed, 7/1/09, Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
Jack Slade
Jul 1, 2009, 7:05:39 PM7/1/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Good points, Jay, and I think it comes down to the mis-understanding that most people have about PRT and all the new proposed systems. Lets create a Definition for Congestion, such as:
""Congestion is what happens when you try to move, and somebody gets in your way, and you are in somebody's way"".
That is the key to PRT...you go very close to destination, nobody delays you, and you delay nobody.
It stands to reason that any other mode that lets you travel most of your trip, delayed by nobody and delaying nobody, decreases the overall congestion.
My calculations are that if we could move 30% of the trips in a city this way, it would decrease congestion on the streets below by 51%. That has made 30% my target for PRT.
Jack Slade |
Jay Andress
Jul 2, 2009, 11:03:56 AM7/2/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael,
I am familiar with Columbus...was up there last week meeting with several State Senators.
I am not going to claim that there aren't challenges. Traffic will exist whenever there are too many people or vehicles or anything that moves trying to go one place at the same time. However with computer controls, advanced notice (so vehicles can be re-routed), good planning (build additional branches to many exit points) the issues will be reduced.
I actually think that Columbus is unique....a growing Midwest City with a strong downtown due to State government. Most cities are spreading out...as Walter has shown in his postings.
Jay
Michael Weidler
Jul 2, 2009, 3:18:58 PM7/2/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| "The issues will be reduced."? This sounds a whole lot like the LRT argument. We're not going to actually fix the problem, but we are going to reduce it....you just won't notice. |
Jay Andress
Jul 2, 2009, 7:10:20 PM7/2/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael,
Lets see....50,000 people leave a stadium or 100,000 leave downtown at 5:oopm and converge on a PRT station...tell me you can solve that problem. To think that any transportation system can handle every situation is just unreasonable. It is you who just doesn't sound realistic.
Jay
Jack Slade
Jul 2, 2009, 8:14:36 PM7/2/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
I have to assume you mean your question to be foolish. Why would all those people concentrate on one station, when there are many in the area?
I agree that no one system can't handle all situations, but it doesn't need to.
Jack Slade |
Michael Weidler
Jul 3, 2009, 1:57:14 AM7/3/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
| Jay, YOU are the one who is claiming to solve congestion using DM. I am claiming that your claim is incorrect. I haven't asked you to empty stadiums, evacuate buildings, or any of the other nifty things which are being claimed for DM. I simply asked you to get me to work without congestion. Your response so far is that you will dump me at some point where you hope there will be less traffic. My response is that adding vehicles back to the surface streets does not in any way reduce congestion. The only way to reduce congestion is to reduce the number of vehicles vying for the same piece of road. Queue jumping does not reduce congestion, although it may reduce transit time for your customers. |
Dennis Manning
Jul 3, 2009, 2:16:19 AM7/3/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
When we focus on congestion relief that's a
legitimate goal. However, it tends to work for solving problems with the
existing system. I like to think more in terms of opportinities PRT can deliver
rather than fixing the existing systems problems. One example is the opportunity
to create large scale auto free zones. This creation has little to do with
solving existing systems congestion problems. Yet these auto free zones could be
created without doing much of anything for the outside congestion, but they are
still a quite worthy application.
I say think in terms of opportunities, not in
terms of fixing the problems of the existing system.
----- Original Message -----From: Michael Weidler
Jay Andress
Jul 3, 2009, 11:37:34 AM7/3/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Michael,
In my original message to you I stated a number of reasons why DM will mitigate congestion at the entrance and exit ramps (which aren't the biggest congestion problem). Use more numerous branching, do not even put the vehicles on the local roads but enter garages on the second and third floors, use computers to re-route vehicles to other less congested exits. Your point about adding more vehicles to local traffic is logical from a theoretical point...how can you add more vehicles...so perhaps from a theoretical perspective the best explanation is that with DM you have added a third dimension to travel...the vertical dimension.
One point I have not made yet is what I call the long-distance traveler who uses the local road. Approximately half of the road users are going longer distances...say five miles down the road. It those vehicles can go above local traffic on an elevated rail then they are removed from local traffic and 50% of vehicles are removed.
Jay
Jerry Roane
Jul 3, 2009, 7:20:01 PM7/3/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Jay
assertion, data to the contrary, data to the contrary, data to the contrary, simulation to the contrary, re-say assertion. It does not matter what you say or what facts or logic you supply. It will not change the outcome. The assertion will be repeated without supporting thought. The amount of cars you remove from traffic will not reduce traffic if traffic is a qualitative concept and not a quantitative concept in the mind. If you add qualitative traffic you add traffic to traffic and then you wait two days and restate the assertion.
Circle arguments are destructive to the promotion of advanced transportation. No outside observer wants to waste their valuable time on unsupported assertions. They have better things to do and then the important key features are lost. If a light rail advocate was trying to do damage they would use this tactic to destroy any effectiveness of this forum.
Jerry Roane
assertion, data to the contrary, data to the contrary, data to the contrary, simulation to the contrary, re-say assertion. It does not matter what you say or what facts or logic you supply. It will not change the outcome. The assertion will be repeated without supporting thought. The amount of cars you remove from traffic will not reduce traffic if traffic is a qualitative concept and not a quantitative concept in the mind. If you add qualitative traffic you add traffic to traffic and then you wait two days and restate the assertion.
Circle arguments are destructive to the promotion of advanced transportation. No outside observer wants to waste their valuable time on unsupported assertions. They have better things to do and then the important key features are lost. If a light rail advocate was trying to do damage they would use this tactic to destroy any effectiveness of this forum.
Jerry Roane
pstr...@yahoo.com
Jul 4, 2009, 7:16:50 PM7/4/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Your last point first. This again is queue jumping. Yes, it will help traffic in the area you are jumping over, but all you have succeeded in doing is moving the congestion 5 miles down the road. However, this may be a valid scenario for jumping over large activity centers such as Columbus. For instance, the vehicle picks up the guideway 25 miles north of the beltway and does not get off until it is has "flown" over Columbus and is 25 miles south of the beltway. It would seem from your post below that we have reached agreement that DM vehicles entering an "activity center" should not leave the guideway. The vehicles should go directly to some sort of parking facility without intermixing with the surface traffic. |
|
Jay Andress
Jul 4, 2009, 9:35:09 PM7/4/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
Actually not so...because if the long distance travel jumps the line to its destination 5 miles down the road it is removed from local traffic. And the local trafic jumps over the destination 5 miles down the road by going up on the elevated track. I imagine that you could reduce local traffic by 50%. Hopefully that makes sense.
Jerry Roane
Jul 5, 2009, 7:43:18 PM7/5/09
to transport-...@googlegroups.com
On your last statement--- There is no difference between operating the car on a physical guideway or a virtual guideway to the user. For that matter the parking trolley guideway is just one more option to guide hardware where it will serve mankind best. If DM needs to be interpreted in pure PRT terms. Think of the parking space as one birth of a PRT station with off line loading. Think of the path the car travels as the guideway but try not to get caught up in the how (virtual guideway or physical guideway) The load station of the TriTrack is the door of the home and within 4 literal feet of the door of the destination. In PRT terms these two load locations are the same as the station load spurs off the main line. We just have a lot of them in our proposed arrangement. What 2getthere does is makes every road a "guideway" that breaks the barrier to a physical track or channel. (We are not using them but we could) It says that any trajectory directed system is now self-driving. To link the two concepts in PRT format we offload our customers who we want to pamper at the door of their destination and that is the offline station stall (equivalent) and the car parks itself on the roof which is the excess car storage piece of track or winter storage barn. This is a mind exercise to equate physical rails or rolling surfaces that require the car to exactly follow a trajectory to a computer derived virtual guideway that takes the hardware along a trajectory. I hope this helps those who think in terms of 1970s PRT to see that PRT is a way of operating the hardware and the how is left up to the most energy efficient and least polluting systems moving forward.
The queue jumping needs more thought because we jump hundreds of queues and we don't get in the way of those we jump over. Studies have been done of people waiting for a service and they pretty much do not care how long they have to wait but they really hate having someone jump in line and get service before they do. At 180 mph we can go a long way out of the as-the-crow-flies path and get you there much faster and with considerably less pollution than a plan that has slow direct routed cars all waiting for their opportunity to use a choked limited resource. We route the whole system many times a minute to insure optimized utilization and that gets everyone where they want to go much faster and it eliminates the traffic at activity zones by fanning out the unloading to all the doors of the building or activity zone EQUALLY. PRT stations do not fan out at the tips of the system but concentrate traffic through the station.
I am not answering Michael's questions on this post.
Jerry Roane
The queue jumping needs more thought because we jump hundreds of queues and we don't get in the way of those we jump over. Studies have been done of people waiting for a service and they pretty much do not care how long they have to wait but they really hate having someone jump in line and get service before they do. At 180 mph we can go a long way out of the as-the-crow-flies path and get you there much faster and with considerably less pollution than a plan that has slow direct routed cars all waiting for their opportunity to use a choked limited resource. We route the whole system many times a minute to insure optimized utilization and that gets everyone where they want to go much faster and it eliminates the traffic at activity zones by fanning out the unloading to all the doors of the building or activity zone EQUALLY. PRT stations do not fan out at the tips of the system but concentrate traffic through the station.
I am not answering Michael's questions on this post.
Jerry Roane
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages