Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

[Jerry Schneider]

He talked a little about the Google driverless car but lots of other
very interesting material as well. I think it can be seen at the CR
website - takes about an hour. He said the traffic in the Silicon
Valley is worse now than in Manhattan, where he was today. Google is
starting up an office in Manhattan that will be home for some
research people from Cornell and the Technion in Israel.

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

My son who works for Google is in New York right now and his hike from the hotel to the Google site is 20 minutes.  He tried his California shoes the first two days and wore blisters in his feet so now he has dressed down to tennis shoes in a city where they all dress up compared to the other coast.  Having a walking perspective of the traffic flow in that part of NY is different way of looking at this problem.  I assume there is not a subway to hop on if he is hiking 20 full minutes in that part of New York.  I guess the subway is only for some subset of the city.  

I would love to build a 180 mph guideway between the new Google New York office and reasonably priced apartments.  My son said one of his co-workers who is there pays $3,000 a month for his little apartment and walks further than his hotel at 20 minutes.  I paid $9,000 for my first mansion just out of school.    (in a federal target area in south central Fort Worth)  

If Google could fix the housing issue for Manhattan they would not need to pay those guys a big premium to work at that office.  The premium for those high tech workers at the top of their game must be tremendous.  Certainly more money spent going no where (neither Google nor the employees) on pay premiums than buying a few miles of extrusion at $200,000 per mile.  

The hard part is getting to the level within Google where ideas are accepted.  I have talked with the worker dudes inside the car program and they have to protect their turf and advise that what they are working on is the best thing ever.  If a clear communication could be made to Larry Page about the gain to Google New York office specifically by building a link between affordable apartments and their new office he would certainly make more money for Google and New York would have incrementally less foot traffic to their office.  They see the value of the Google bus obviously above the price of the bus where they let workers work on the bus.  Walking 40 minutes a day is non-productive and you can't wear your California shoes apparently.  4mph walking speed for a younger worker says the trip is 2.66 miles wasted effort and at 180 mph that is 30 seconds per trip plus 18.6 seconds to accelerate and decelerate.    

Housing and office space that are accessible are required to make the pay premium for attracting workers to that office without breaking the bank.  Advanced transportation like a grown up Shweeb would solve that problem and improve the life style of Google workers over all other workers in New York City by thousands of dollars per worker per month's rent.  

Many large companies have used the model where they create a company store and company living arrangements.  This typically was a reverse situation where the company was located in a remote location like a copper mine or a chemical plant.  This is trying to place a big company in a city that is already full and has rent controlled weirdness screwing up the free market for living accommodations.  Only Google is big enough and has enough vision and thought for their workers to build a company in a major full city but look at it like a remote company installation in an empty space.  If they built the apartments and built the offices as well as  the physical link between the two it would be very much like a Dow Chemical building a magnesium plant on the gulf coast.  They have to supply both the factory and housing as well as a way to get from one to the other.  To get land prices compatible with housing you have to move further from the city center and that creates mobility need.  If one mile is good then 9 miles is better for getting a better land price to build employee housing or contracting for a developer to build.  At 9 miles the commute is 3 minutes so the wasted time for workers would not justify pulling out the lap top and rebooting their Windows 7 if they are not using their Apples.  At land prices in Northern New York the commute could be 27 miles away or 9 minutes.  Somewhere there is an optimum for land price rent and transportation cost.  In all cases it takes Google traffic off the Manhattan sidewalks.  Freeing them up for New Yorkers who already live there.  

Jerry Roane 

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

He talked a little about the Google driverless car but lots of other very interesting material as well.  I think it can be seen at the CR website - takes about an hour. He said the traffic in the Silicon Valley is worse now than in Manhattan, where he was today. Google is starting up an office in Manhattan that will be home for some research people from Cornell and the Technion in Israel.

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

[kirston henderson]

on 5/23/12 9:34 AM, Jerry Roane at jerry...@gmail.com wrote:

Jerry

My son who works for Google is in New York right now and his hike from the hotel to the Google site is 20 minutes.  He tried his California shoes the first two days and wore blisters in his feet so now he has dressed down to tennis shoes in a city where they all dress up compared to the other coast.  Having a walking perspective of the traffic flow in that part of NY is different way of looking at this problem.  I assume there is not a subway to hop on if he is hiking 20 full minutes in that part of New York.  I guess the subway is only for some subset of the city.  

I would love to build a 180 mph guideway between the new Google New York office and reasonably priced apartments.  My son said one of his co-workers who is there pays $3,000 a month for his little apartment and walks further than his hotel at 20 minutes.  I paid $9,000 for my first mansion just out of school.    (in a federal target area in south central Fort Worth)  

   Just because Google was formed by a couple of computer nerds who worked out a means to build a better internet search engine and were able cash in on it in the marketplace does not necessarily mean that all of the people subsequently employed by and now run Google have anything close to the right answers for most other problems as is illustrated by the situation that your son has discovered in NYC.  (I don't mean to cast an doubt on your son's capability.)

   I am afraid that the same goes for whoever at Google cooked up that self-driving car scheme.  It sounds like a great concept until you wake up from your dream and spend about a minute of fully-awake time trying to think through the idea.  Perhaps this fellow would do much better at working on something else on his computer.

Kirston Henderson


 
   

[Jerry Schneider]

Judging by the way he perked up when asked about the Google car, I
think that Larry Page has been a driving force behind the development
effort. Perhaps it would help if KH would spend some time getting
acquainted with LP and the way he thinks.
http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/2594

[Kirston Henderson]

On May 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jerry Schneider wrote:

> Judging by the way he perked up when asked about the Google car, I
> think that Larry Page has been a driving force behind the
> development effort. Perhaps it would help if KH would spend some
> time getting acquainted with LP and the way he thinks.

I presume that I am the KH that you refer to. If so, I doubt it
because we obviously live in different worlds. (We may not even speak
the same language.) I have enough trouble with mid-western English.
I may not have worked for the great Googe, but I have a lot of years
experience developing advanced systems using computers, including the
means that modern, distributed computers communicate and are programmed.

I also am beginning to accumulate a significant amount of experience
in developing guideway-based vehicles wherein the computing
requirements are relatively modest but by the time that you develop
systems with the essential levels of automated self-testing and
failure tolerance to make them safe for human use, you find a lot of
hurdles working with only a single dimension wherein you have near
absolute control over the operating environment. If you add all of
the other dimensions and multitude of environmental factors, the
problem becomes impractical to solve. Not only that, if you manage to
do it, just how much have you contributed to solving the problems of
congestion and air pollution caused by the current set of automobiles
and big trucks?

Kirston Henderson

[Jack Slade]

Kirston,  I am with you on this one.  The best example is this,  and I must explain why I say it.  My background is mostly aviation,  and I am familiar with the automated systems on aircraft.  Having said that, here is what I feel about taking a trip on a plane that is fully automated,  that is NO Pilot.

 

I would have to be 'Nuts".  Computers can be programmed to deal with situations that are known or at least anticipated.   With every emergency that happens,  there is always some factor that was unusual:  something happened that both the builder and the operator did not anticipate.  This means that the computer would not be programmed to handle it either.

 

The same applies to cars.  With over sixty years of driving all over North America you might think that I would have seen everything bad that can happen on the road.  Think again.  Every week somebody out there does something different from what I have ever seen before.

 

So:  Since I can only program a computer to deal with problems that I know, or even anticipate, how do I program it to deal with the ones that I do not know about,  or one that has never happened before?

 

Jack Slade

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

[eph]

I think that the google approach is to slow down or stop if faced with something unanticipated, perhaps demanding driver intervention.  It's harder to just stop in an airplane, but acceptable (to some degree) on the road.  It may learn/record the correct response given the circumstance in the future.  If cars are made to communicate with Google (instant tracking, crowd sourcing), reviewed interventions can be propagated to other cars in the same situation.

I know everyone here wants it to fail and don't want to hear different, but it will probably "work" in the statistical sense where fatalities match or better human fatalities.  It's a shame this is what will be acceptable when near zero fatalities, no emissions, greater throughput and less overall cost would be possible with guideway based systems.


F.

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

[Jerry Roane]

F.

I don't want to be grouped with "everyone here wants it to fail".  That is a broad brush.  I believe that the high end computing can easily solve simple mechanical motion problems well enough to "work".  I believe that they will do better than human drivers not because the human driver is that bad of a controller when paying attention.  The data suggests that an attentive driver is an incredibly good driver.  It is distractions that turn a human driver into junk.  That said my objection was of my reservations of the litigation associated with computer taking control will bring on massive judgments against the company who dares.  If my little company were to take on the ambulance chasers I would lose.  Perhaps a powerhouse with big deep pockets could take it on.  Moving a wafer through a semiconductor plant is not much different than moving a few cars down a few roads from the computer's perspective.  It has been done for quite some time and computers are significantly faster than anything mechanical.  

I would like to mention out of order that DM is not just putting regular cars on a transport truck.  DM is about two modes (or more) roadway and guideway.  That does not have any bearing on the weight of the guideway car unless you look at a single design.  

Back on topic I believe that self-driving cars are perfect for parking and that is what is already on the market being sold today but in a bare bones form.  It is nothing to expand the parallel parking task to parking on the roof so I think it is a given to be able to remote park cars autonomously.  That part of self-driving is an enabling technology for TriTrack's vision of how you park your private individual seatcovers and associated cup holder.  (Your private space and personal clutter).  With the ability to self-drive you transform the architecture of the buildings we all use.  Back in the days of horse drawn carriages the kitchen often had raised floors that were dock high to let you leave the carriage and step into the home easily and it kept the mud out of the passenger path.  Additionally it had a cover above so the rain was no longer getting you wet moving from your carriage to the house.  It is easy to date a home built before cars and after.  These entrances show the age of the antique home.  Same thing will happen with new houses as the entrance to the home will return to these porticoes and the car will go park itself wherever it can talking with all other cars parked in the vicinity.  Packing density of parked cars is what self-driving cars can do right off the bat.  No need to open the doors taking up expensive real estate.  The cars can park inches from each other and return even if one car is blocking another under present conditions of human parking.  

While on the guideway I think we are all eventually talking about self-driving cars.  I think Kirston is thinking second generation but still in the plan.  The difference is the road portion and the increased complexity and litigation that it brings.  I think our little group should embrace the idea of computer capability and recognize that the hardware and software and do this in the next few months.  The bigger task is outside the computer field.  Same with PRT DM whatever.  It is not the hardware or software that is the issue at all but marketing and sales of the concepts.  I use that term in the broadest of context.  

I believe it will take all of the above to get the nation's economy healthy and thriving.  Guideway and advanced computer control.  Just my take.

Jerry Roane   

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/W7cC-BsT3ysJ.

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

[Dennis Manning]

You seem to be asking for perfection. With the criteria you suggest how can PRT ever be good enough?

 

Dennis

From: Jack Slade

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:32 PM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

Kirston,  I am with you on this one.  The best example is this,  and I must explain why I say it.  My background is mostly aviation,  and I am familiar with the automated systems on aircraft.  Having said that, here is what I feel about taking a trip on a plane that is fully automated,  that is NO Pilot.

 

I would have to be 'Nuts".  Computers can be programmed to deal with situations that are known or at least anticipated.   With every emergency that happens,  there is always some factor that was unusual:  something happened that both the builder and the operator did not anticipate.  This means that the computer would not be programmed to handle it either.

 

The same applies to cars.  With over sixty years of driving all over North America you might think that I would have seen everything bad that can happen on the road.  Think again.  Every week somebody out there does something different from what I have ever seen before.

 

So:  Since I can only program a computer to deal with problems that I know, or even anticipate, how do I program it to deal with the ones that I do not know about,  or one that has never happened before?

 

Jack Slade

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:48:20 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

On May 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jerry Schneider wrote:

> Judging by the way he perked up when asked about the Google car, I think that Larry Page has been a driving force behind the development effort. Perhaps it would help if KH would spend some time getting acquainted with LP and the way he thinks.

    I presume that I am the KH that you refer to.  If so, I doubt it because we obviously live in different worlds.  (We may not even speak the same language.)  I have enough trouble with mid-western English.  I may not have worked for the great Googe, but I have a lot of years experience developing advanced systems using computers, including the means that modern, distributed computers communicate and are programmed.

    I also am beginning to accumulate a significant amount of experience in developing guideway-based vehicles wherein the computing requirements are relatively modest but by the time that you develop systems with the essential levels of automated self-testing and failure tolerance to make them safe for human use, you find a lot of hurdles working with only a single dimension wherein you have near absolute control over the operating environment.  If you add all of the other dimensions and multitude of environmental factors, the problem becomes impractical to solve.  Not only that, if you manage to do it, just how much have you contributed to solving the problems of congestion and air pollution caused by the current set of automobiles and big trucks?

Kirston Henderson

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

--

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

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

[Dennis Manning]

Please don't put me in the "he wishes it will fail column".  I just think it's more difficult to do than say Brad Templeton professes, and that it will take much longer to implement.

 

Dennis

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/W7cC-BsT3ysJ.

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

[Jerry Schneider]

At 05:59 AM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
>I think that the google approach is to slow down or stop if faced
>with something unanticipated, perhaps demanding driver
>intervention. It's harder to just stop in an airplane, but
>acceptable (to some degree) on the road. It may learn/record the
>correct response given the circumstance in the future. If cars are
>made to communicate with Google (instant tracking, crowd sourcing),
>reviewed interventions can be propagated to other cars in the same situation.
>
>I know everyone here wants it to fail and don't want to hear
>different, but it will probably "work" in the statistical sense
>where fatalities match or better human fatalities. It's a shame
>this is what will be acceptable when near zero fatalities, no
>emissions, greater throughput and less overall cost would be
>possible with guideway based systems.

I'd be interested to know more about why you think "less overall
cost" - as it seems to me that lower cost (i.e. no guideway required)
is regarded as a very prominent reason that its supporters always
cite up front.


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

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:34 AM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
>Please don't put me in the "he wishes it will fail column". I just
>think it's more difficult to do than say Brad Templeton professes,
>and that it will take much longer to implement.

If it is implemented in phases, a little at a time, as I suspect it
will (must) - how long will it take to get some experience with Phase I?

[Dennis Manning]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 9:14 AM

To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie
Rose show

Yep! That's the big question.

>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "transport-innovators" group.

[Jack Slade]

Not perfection,  but close to it.   To do this for PRT is not easy...nobody ever said it was...but it has far fewer problems to deal with than a road vehicle has.   Problems on a guideway are easier to define,  and are not subject to the same variations as roads.  

 

Would I like to be able to tell my car where to take me today,  and to go park itself when I get there?  You bet I would.  However,  I am not in such a frenzy of anticipation that I am willing ignore obstacles that are real,  in the hope that future technology will soon solve them.

 

I suggest you pose a couple of safety questions to these people.  1.   Have you given any thought to what laser and radar pulses may do to the eyes of perestrians over a long period of time?

 

I have posted that question here on the list,  and everybody ignores it.  Why?

 

Jack Slade

[Richard Gronning]

Here's a question (Probably meaningless in the long run), if one were to pick a trip in an automated vehicle, what vehicle would you choose?

Obviously, most, if not all, would pick a trip on a dedicated guideway, like PRT. But, my question would give a person only 2 choices, an aircraft or a robocar.

I'll start off with considerations;

• Weather
• Speed
  
• Drunks and other operators
  
• Number of dimensions to use (3 vs. 2)
• Type of limiting and controlling organizations
• Inspecting and licensing
• Condition of equipment

Any more considerations?  Why would your choice be best?

Dick

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:07 AM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
>Here's a question (Probably meaningless in the long run), if one
>were to pick a trip in an automated vehicle, what vehicle would you choose?
>
>Obviously, most, if not all, would pick a trip on a dedicated
>guideway, like PRT. But, my question would give a person only 2
>choices, an aircraft or a robocar.
>
>I'll start off with considerations;

> * Weather
> * Speed
> * Drunks and other operators
> * Number of dimensions to use (3 vs. 2)
> * Type of limiting and controlling organizations
> * Inspecting and licensing
> * Condition of equipment

>
>Any more considerations? Why would your choice be best?

Good question. Without stating your assumptions about the nature of
the trip, it's a difficult question to answer. If you assume that the
deployment of robocars at development stage X will be "everywhere"
there are a large number of factors to consider, not all of them
anticipated and programmed. I expect to see a phased deployment and
considerable evolution of robocars over time that will provide
whatever limiting conditions or regulations need to be adopted,
probably dictated by some unfortunate events. That said, I generally
favor man/machine combinations (partnerships) as I think they are
likely to be superior, overall, for some time yet.

[eph]

I think that if you roll in the environmental cost, health care costs, insurance costs, fuel costs, vehicle costs, maintenance cost, etc. AND extra infrastructure to handle all these robocars, a case can be made for guideway + cheaper, smaller, shorter-range electric cars (DM).  Unfortunately, many of these impacts aren't reflected in the perceived cost of car driving.  My statement was "overall cost" - which includes societal costs as I see it.  Google has made selling DM that much more difficult by pushing it's vision that is seen as "good enough".  That's a shame.


F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:03 PM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
>I think that if you roll in the environmental cost, health care
>costs, insurance costs, fuel costs, vehicle costs, maintenance cost,
>etc. AND extra infrastructure to handle all these robocars, a case
>can be made for guideway + cheaper, smaller, shorter-range electric
>cars (DM). Unfortunately, many of these impacts aren't reflected in
>the perceived cost of car driving. My statement was "overall cost"
>- which includes societal costs as I see it. Google has made
>selling DM that much more difficult by pushing it's vision that is
>seen as "good enough". That's a shame.

Fair enough - if you include the potential savings that might arise
from greatly improved safety and mobility services to groups that
would benefit from it (elderly non-drives, blind people, drunk
driving reductions, and so on). I would hope that someone on the
Google team is doing such calculations on societal impact issues. So
far, I've not see much on the subject with the exception of Tyler
Folsom's excellent paper on the subject.
Link to paper
entitled<http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/tyler-article.pdf>
Social Ramifications of Autonomous Urban Land Vehicles, by Tyler C.
Folsom (posted in 2010, my What's New page).

>F.
>
>On Thursday, 24 May 2012 11:44:42 UTC-4, jschneider wrote:
>At 05:59 AM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
> >I think that the google approach is to slow down or stop if faced
> >with something unanticipated, perhaps demanding driver
> >intervention. It's harder to just stop in an airplane, but
> >acceptable (to some degree) on the road. It may learn/record the
> >correct response given the circumstance in the future. If cars are
> >made to communicate with Google (instant tracking, crowd sourcing),
> >reviewed interventions can be propagated to other cars in the same
> situation.
> >
> >I know everyone here wants it to fail and don't want to hear
> >different, but it will probably "work" in the statistical sense
> >where fatalities match or better human fatalities. It's a shame
> >this is what will be acceptable when near zero fatalities, no
> >emissions, greater throughput and less overall cost would be
> >possible with guideway based systems.
>I'd be interested to know more about why you think "less overall
>cost" - as it seems to me that lower cost (i.e. no guideway required)
>is regarded as a very prominent reason that its supporters always
>cite up front.
>
>- Jerry Schneider -
> Innovative Transportation Technologies
>

><http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>
>
>
>
>--

>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.

>To view this discussion on the web visit

><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJAoJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJAoJ.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

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

>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[WALTER BREWER]

100 years from now,if Jack's statement is published in the "100 years ago" section of Aviation week, what wold be the reaction?

 

I realize one definition of a piolot;s life is"Hours and hourd of bordom, with a few cases of sheer terror in between".

 

But what about real time ground response to automated passenger flight problems; and maybe all landings to start?

In flight anomoly allerts the ground "pilot" who manages the correction with what is available, and if nesessart initiates emergency automated landing.

 

Could such hamdle the landing in the Hudson?

In the safety comparison, how do you count accidents caused by the on-board pilot? The Buffalo crash couple years was cased by the pilot and would not have happened under automatic control.

 

Walt Brewer

--

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

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

[Jerry Schneider]

I have always been an advocate of "questioning authority" - it's a
great way to learn.
I also like to challenge inappropriate analogies.

I think until we know more about the evolutionary path to deployment
that the Google
team maps out, it will be hard to know which of our many societal
problems, that are
related to our mobility desires and needs, might be targeted by their
evolving product. I don't think
"solving congestion" is at the top of their list at the moment.
Autonomous trucks have
not been mentioned so far as I know. Autonomous golf carts have been.
I thought you
were intending to start with a human driver. Hope you leave something
for that person
to do other than staying awake.

[Jerry Roane]

F.

I am not sure you two guys are reading each other's posts correctly.  The present price of the Google auto-driving car is significant.  There is a hope that the astronomical hardware cost might come down by a factor of  ... not-going-to-happen.  If there are a billion $40,000.00 cars in the world and you want to add a $6000 option to it that is 6 trillion dollars as their incremental cost?   Please check my math.  Each car has to have a module and the data network has to be paid for and maintained at some cost around $100.00 per month in today dollars.  TriTrack specifically is 5 pennies a mile for energy or 1 billion cars driving 14,000 miles a year.  14,000 miles equals $700/year times a billion cars is $700 billion which is less than 6 trillion.  Additionally the billion cars get 20 mpg not TriTrack performance so the 6 trillion is just the adder for self driving lazy driving.  14,000 miles at 20 mpg with $5.00 gas is $3500/year in addition to the Google hardware on a billion cars.  $1200 per year per car for Internet.  The world is not that rich.  Gasoline and diesel in addition to the cost of the self-drivomatic will bankrupt us period.  If the self-drivomatic was free and paid each billion user $4000/year it still will cost more than TriTrack specifically.  

The problem with "illion" math is the public has no idea what those numbers mean.  They are all just big numbers.  

You do point out the externalities and they too are valid and add to the "illion" math problem but you forgot some major ones that dwarf the ones you listed.  Same outcome.  

Jerry Roane 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJAoJ.

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

[Jack Slade]

I would not want forecast what 100 years of tehchnological improvements may bring,  and I certainly  am  not a pessimist.  Anything that I say applies to present-day conditions,  and anything new that may help us in the near future.  I think it is stupid to put all resources into one technology while ignoring all others,  yet this is what is happening.  History repeating itself:  Remember the push for fuel cells and the hydrogen technology of only 10 years ago?  Where is it all now?

 

Jack Slade

[eph]

Hmm, mentions the Lille metro as an autonomous vehicle (guideway based!) - this glosses over the potential (especially in the early days) of computer induced errors (Toyota brake example).  Also the potential to plow into crowds and drive off cliffs (perhaps due to a computer virus or weather) - not the case with guideway based vehicles.

Though driverless vehicles can be electric, they probably won't be in this critical time where we need to act on climate change.  Not likely that minimalist vehicles will be available because highway speeds tend to favour large vehicles, especially in bad or windy weather. 

It is likely that extra infrastructure for driverless cars will be exactly as it is now - large and maintenance hungry.  Guideway carrying small vehicles can be optimized and on a life-cycle cost likely end up ahead compared to roads, though we have no examples to prove this yet and this is design dependent.

Higher speeds can be achieved safely in most weather conditions, increasing productivity and reliability for workforce and supplies.

We're missing our chance to create a new, better transportation mode.

F.

>To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

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

[Jerry Schneider]

At 01:58 PM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
>F.
>
>I am not sure you two guys are reading each other's posts
>correctly. The present price of the Google auto-driving car is
>significant. There is a hope that the astronomical hardware cost
>might come down by a factor of ... not-going-to-happen. If there
>are a billion $40,000.00 cars in the world and you want to add a
>$6000 option to it that is 6 trillion dollars as their incremental
>cost? Please check my math. Each car has to have a module and the
>data network has to be paid for and maintained at some cost around
>$100.00 per month in today dollars. TriTrack specifically is 5
>pennies a mile for energy or 1 billion cars driving 14,000 miles a
>year. 14,000 miles equals $700/year times a billion cars is $700
>billion which is less than 6 trillion. Additionally the billion
>cars get 20 mpg not TriTrack performance so the 6 trillion is just
>the adder for self driving lazy driving. 14,000 miles at 20 mpg
>with $5.00 gas is $3500/year in addition to the Google hardware on a
>billion cars. $1200 per year per car for Internet. The world is
>not that rich. Gasoline and diesel in addition to the cost of the
>self-drivomatic will bankrupt us period. If the self-drivomatic was
>free and paid each billion user $4000/year it still will cost more
>than TriTrack specifically.

This is an example of taking the argument to an extreme level and
using it to try to take down the other view - commonly used. The
Google car is going to have to follow an evolutionary path that will
have lots of checks based on experience, not extreme projections and
will be subject to termination if it doesn't pass muster. As best I
can tell, the concept resonates
very well with a large section of the public (not including the
people who have rival inventions) and that popular support is now
producing activity that is intended to encourage its deployment. How
wise the Google team is going to be in formulating a phased
implementation in locations that make sense is yet to be determined.
No amount of calculation based on extreme assumptions is going to
have much impact on what they think and do.

>The problem with "illion" math is the public has no idea what those
>numbers mean. They are all just big numbers.

I agree that the public interest is largely emotional, not analytical.

>You do point out the externalities and they too are valid and add to
>the "illion" math problem but you forgot some major ones that dwarf
>the ones you listed. Same outcome.

Let's consider your assertion that the cost of equipping the vehicles
(will they all be stock Toyotas).will not come down over time. Please
explain why you believe this to be the case. Won't maintaining the
data base be limited to those locations where the Phase I vehicles
are allowed to travel without restriction? That's a good point and
needs investigation. I would assume that the bigger the database, the
more costly it will be to keep updated. Some areas will be growing,
some declining and others not changing much at all.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:13 PM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
>Hmm, mentions the Lille metro as an autonomous vehicle (guideway
>based!) - this glosses over the potential (especially in the early
>days) of computer induced errors (Toyota brake example). Also the
>potential to plow into crowds and drive off cliffs (perhaps due to a
>computer virus or weather) - not the case with guideway based vehicles.
>
>Though driverless vehicles can be electric, they probably won't be
>in this critical time where we need to act on climate change. Not
>likely that minimalist vehicles will be available because highway
>speeds tend to favour large vehicles, especially in bad or windy weather.
>
>It is likely that extra infrastructure for driverless cars will be
>exactly as it is now - large and maintenance hungry. Guideway
>carrying small vehicles can be optimized and on a life-cycle cost
>likely end up ahead compared to roads, though we have no examples to
>prove this yet and this is design dependent.
>
>Higher speeds can be achieved safely in most weather conditions,
>increasing productivity and reliability for workforce and supplies.
>
>We're missing our chance to create a new, better transportation mode.

Well, it has been at least 40 years since some reasonable PRT
concepts were defined Since then there have been alternative designs,
and some minimal levels of cussing and discussing. Widespread
visibility and public interest levels are still dismal.

Autonomous vehicles are relatively new on the scene and have gotten
more broad and high level attention in the last few years that PRT
has gotten in 40 years. We need to see what might be possible in
terms of an evolutionary path, some decent cost estimates, some
decent societal impact estimates (i.e. benefit/cost) and a whole lot
more before a credible "better" judgment can be made.

>F.
>
>
>On Thursday, 24 May 2012 15:59:35 UTC-4, jschneider wrote:
>At 12:03 PM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
> >I think that if you roll in the environmental cost, health care
> >costs, insurance costs, fuel costs, vehicle costs, maintenance cost,
> >etc. AND extra infrastructure to handle all these robocars, a case
> >can be made for guideway + cheaper, smaller, shorter-range electric
> >cars (DM). Unfortunately, many of these impacts aren't reflected in
> >the perceived cost of car driving. My statement was "overall cost"
> >- which includes societal costs as I see it. Google has made
> >selling DM that much more difficult by pushing it's vision that is
> >seen as "good enough". That's a shame.
>
>Fair enough - if you include the potential savings that might arise
>from greatly improved safety and mobility services to groups that
>would benefit from it (elderly non-drives, blind people, drunk
>driving reductions, and so on). I would hope that someone on the
>Google team is doing such calculations on societal impact issues. So
>far, I've not see much on the subject with the exception of Tyler
>Folsom's excellent paper on the subject.
>Link to paper

>entitled<<http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/tyler-article.pdf>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/tyler-article.pdf>

> oJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJAoJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJAoJ.

>
> >To post to this group, send email to

> <mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.

>
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> ><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transpo
> rt-innovator...@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group at

> ><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://g
> roups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

>
>
>- Jerry Schneider -
> Innovative Transportation Technologies
>
><http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To view this discussion on the web visit

><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ.
>To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

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

[Jack Slade]

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:02:25 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

>>>> Well, it has been at least 40 years since some reasonable PRT concepts were defined Since then there have been alternative designs, and some minimal levels of cussing and discussing. Widespread visibility and public interest levels are still dismal.

Autonomous vehicles are relatively new on the scene and have gotten more broad and high level attention in the last few years that PRT has gotten in 40 years. We need to see what might be possible in terms of an evolutionary path, some decent cost estimates, some decent societal impact estimates (i.e. benefit/cost) and a whole lot more before a credible "better" judgment can be made.<<<

 

Here we go again.  How can you say there are no "decent cost estimates"?  What is a "decent societal impact estimate"?  Do you mean approval by the academic society...the same type of people who changed Morgantown to GRT because they could not get their little minds around the PRT concept?

 

How can we get any of this if ALL the money goes into failed projects,  one at a time? And what do you mean by "it has been at least 40 years since some reasonable PRT concepts were defined"?

 

Jack Slade

> ><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transpo rt-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group at
> ><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://g roups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
> - Jerry Schneider -
>      Innovative Transportation Technologies
>
> <http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

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

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.


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

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

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

[eph]

What people "like" isn't necessarily what's "better".  But then, without interest there is no money.  Nothing new here.

It's interesting that none of "some decent cost estimates, some decent societal impact estimates (i.e. benefit/cost) and a whole lot more " has been done for driverless cars, just a media blits, publicity stunts and talking to politicians.  What's good about their vision is that Big Oil and car companies can continue selling and THAT matters more than Climate Change and efficient transportation.


F.

> <mailto:transport-innovators@googlegroups.com>transport-innov...@googlegroups.com.

>
> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> ><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transpo

> rt-innovators+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group at
> ><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://g
> roups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
>- Jerry Schneider -
>      Innovative Transportation Technologies
>
><http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
>
>
>
>
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "transport-innovators" group.
>To view this discussion on the web visit
><https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ.

>To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

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

[Jerry Schneider]

At 06:09 PM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
>What people "like" isn't necessarily what's "better". But then,
>without interest there is no money. Nothing new here.
>
>It's interesting that none of "some decent cost estimates, some
>decent societal impact estimates (i.e. benefit/cost) and a whole lot
>more " has been done for driverless cars, just a media blits,
>publicity stunts and talking to politicians. What's good about
>their vision is that Big Oil and car companies can continue selling
>and THAT matters more than Climate Change and efficient transportation.

Yes, that is true - but I think you are not counting any of the
potential benefits from what they are trying to do. They describe
some of them in gross terms but apparently have not done the hard,
detailed C/B work. The Nevada regs are not trival and I suspect that
other states will probably squeeze them a bit more when they write
and adopt their regs. If the California bill that has passed the
Senate gets signed by Brown, it should be worth a close look. Have
you read Tyler's paper? If so, what do you think of his analyses?

[eph]

I haven't read it carefully yet, but fuel savings based on reduced following distance means no BWS rule.  Putting more cars per lane also means decreased safety as escape routes to veer off in don't exist.  The benefits of PRT have been discussed here at length and they are well understood and driverless cars (truly driverless) will (some day) bring those benefits if they can get around in the gridlock.

Large cars with a driver (taxis) aren't much less efficient than a driverless car - just the weight of one person over a ton or two.  What matters with PRT is the guideway/vehicle combination for efficiency allowing non-stop travel and efficiency not possible on regular roads.

I had thought that a driverless car/DM combination would work, but if DC come out before DM, or since google jumped the gun and muddied the waters, it may never happen because of lack of interest and perceived need.  I hope I'm wrong.


F.

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

This is an example of a mathematical logic approach to putting the outer limits on the equation to be solved.  This is the first few chapters in the text book on advanced math.  Take the limits and check for discontinuities.  Higher math is just another critical tool to be applied to any problem.  If it accidentally takes down another view then so be it.  It is a common thing because it is based on this math approach.  The number exercise was just taking the full version and give it numbers to compare.  Once I exceeded my calculator digits and dropped to scientific notation on my screen I knew my message was lost.  Thus waxing philosophical on what the public can endure with large numbers.  Google is aware of taking limits and looking at things from an analytic view.  If any argument is to penetrate there it will be higher math.  They know how to apply limits.  A phased introduction only leads to the full implementation so you have to assess where it is going in the end.  

My point was this will be a high end option on your car purchase.  Today you can for about $4,000 buy a parallel parking app for some cars.  Some portion of the market will pay $4,000 for this option.  The dealer can make 100% of the cars seem more than they are with this option being offered.  It is part of marketing to inflate the impression of the car but not really increase the manufactured cost.  It does increase the development cost so even though you don't order the $4,000 option to park you car five times in its life if you live where I live (not much need for parking that way) you pay for it by buying that car model and brand.  There is value created in brand and prestige.  Each individual has to assess the value to them individually if that brand is worth it to them.  My version is brand is worth almost nothing but I am an extreme minority.  

Self-driving cars will be more expensive than parking your car with limited moves.  Air Conditioning on the sticker of a new car has been an option for many many years yet the MSRP on air conditioning is still very high.  I make my assertion that self-driving will be a high sticker MSRP based on air conditioning being well over $1000 for about $300 worth of hardware and overly regulated Freon mixtures.  In the 1980s I was working on radar that took pictures from an airplane through the clouds.  Those units sold for over $1,000,000 each to the military.  Now those super high speed circuits are much cheaper than $1,000,000 but they are not free just yet.  (again with the limits)  Radar and laser light are very fast signals and once the signal on the PCB goes to a certain speed the board itself has to made of more exotic (spelled expensive) materials.  The connection methods and interconnect take on a whole different look at high electronic speeds.  The closest example that comes to mind is the difference between Mach speed and subsonic speed.  They are significantly different but both similar but different speeds.  Long version.  The short version is Google does not state the price of the hardware and hold that price tight to the vest.  If it were cheap they would laud how low cost it was.  

I might have mixed up my cost story some throwing everything in one pile.  The data package on your telephone is one cost that will be similarly incurred with interconnected cars.  Bandwidth is not free and server farms are not free.  Again Google does not divulge the cost of their server farms.  It is substantial of course.  Costs do come down because that industry trends down.  Cars --- not so much.  Their pricing trends up and has for my lifetime.  Only Henry Ford alone trended car prices down.  He caught considerable flack from his investors for doing so.  The data subscription monthly charge is the model for getting cash from the public.  The car interconnect will be buried in the in-flight (car) movies and video games but it will be expensive and one more way they can monetize the self-driving car.  I am not saying that customer's won't like paying the price for the service.  I am just suggesting that the cost will be spread out so it seems more painless.  

I will always apply limits to any presented concept.  I am an engineer.  

Jerry Roane 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

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

[Richard Gronning]

Interesting post Jack!
I learned several years ago that the transportation folks actually have a study for societal impact. It's called a, "Community Impact Assessment." (CIA) Since this tool is available, I've advocated using it to promote advanced concepts in transportation for some years.
Dick

[Richard Gronning]

On 5/24/2012 3:15 PM, WALTER BREWER wrote:

100 years from now,if Jack's statement is published in the "100 years ago" section of Aviation week, what wold be the reaction?

100 years from now, if anything sensible happens, we'll be traveling between cities and continents in evacuated tubes and not in aircraft.

 

I realize one definition of a piolot;s life is"Hours and hourd of bordom, with a few cases of sheer terror in between".

Yes, I have a few anecdotes in my memory banks.

 

But what about real time ground response to automated passenger flight problems; and maybe all landings to start?

In flight anomoly allerts the ground "pilot" who manages the correction with what is available, and if nesessart initiates emergency automated landing.

I remember that the USAF required that crew chiefs rode with their assigned AC. The reasoning was that if they used some guy or gal, 18-25 years old  to fix and maintain the AC, he-she might not have grown up enough to feel the responsibility for the job. If he-she knew that he-she put his-her own neck at risk, the potential for responsibility went in the right direction.

 

Could such hamdle the landing in the Hudson?

EV tube vehicles don't need to land in the Hudson. The point of the matter is the number of situations and the number of decisions that are generated with both driving and flying. A dedicated guideway eliminates a host of problems. In my mind it has to do with the number of dimensions that the system operates in.

In the safety comparison, how do you count accidents caused by the on-board pilot? The Buffalo crash couple years was cased by the pilot and would not have happened under automatic control.

And then there is the French flight over the Atlantic. And then there is the question that arises with a certain amount of automation stifling the ability to coordinate and actually do a job when it is necessary.

Should it be a question of complete automation vs. very little automation? I almost think so. Yet at least in aviation, there can be the situation where actual live humans can get into the act. Perhaps a fuller automation situation where several people are discussing the situation might prove the better situation, which would be the case if an emergency were handled from the ground. But, in aviation, the situations usually have more time (ironically) than driving situations.

Dick

[Jerry Schneider]

Perhaps the details (i.e. history) of how automation has evolved in
aircraft would be a useful analogy to how automation might (or
should) occur in autonomous cars - altho there are certainly some
major differences in the moving environment and vehicular motion that
could reduce the analogy to rubble.

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

[Jack Slade]

Aircraft automation usually includes a lot of thinking that has been omitted with car automation.  "Redundancy" is one term that I have not heard used,  ever.  This means having backup systems operating constantly,  so that failure of one system does not cause a crash,  or other problem.  Space travel is even worse:  The Moon trips had 5 on-board computers....quadruple backup.  This all costs more,  of course, but if it avoids one accident it has paid for itself and saved the project. 

As for timespan,  autopilots were used in WW2,  and I know that semi-automated landings were being tried as early as 1955.  This is certainly different from the Rush-to-Judgement "Pass"  that most gives Google and Robocars.

 

Jack Slade

 

 

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

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

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.


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

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

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

[Jerry Schneider]

At 07:51 AM 5/25/2012, you wrote:
>Interesting post Jack!
>I learned several years ago that the transportation folks actually
>have a study for societal impact. It's called a, "Community Impact
>Assessment." (CIA) Since this tool is available, I've advocated
>using it to promote advanced concepts in transportation for some years.

An "assessment" is supposed to describe pros and cons - it's use as
an advocacy tool should depend on the balance between the two -
difficult as it is to sum them up. They are filled with dubious
assumptions and items that cannot be easily quantified. They are
essentially forecasts.

[Richard Gronning]

On 5/25/2012 12:16 PM, Jack Slade wrote:

Aircraft automation usually includes a lot of thinking that has been omitted with car automation.

For several reasons; Automobile automation is fairly new. Since it's sold to the public, automobiles' costs have been minimized.

  "Redundancy" is one term that I have not heard used,  ever.

BAD term for English majors -GREAT term for engineers!
Ed Anderson used it and continues to use it.

This means having backup systems operating constantly,  so that failure of one system does not cause a crash,  or other problem.  Space travel is even worse:  The Moon trips had 5 on-board computers....quadruple backup.  This all costs more,  of course, but if it avoids one accident it has paid for itself and saved the project. 

In commercial aircraft every system is duplicated. On a B-747 for instance, 6 electrical generators, 6 hydraulic pumps, 5 pneumatic sources. The back-ups on landing gear, flight controls, etc. are numerous. Flight instruments all have numerous duplications. 3 autopilots.

Imagine an automobile expense with this kind of redundancy...

As for timespan,  autopilots were used in WW2,  and I know that semi-automated landings were being tried as early as 1955.  This is certainly different from the Rush-to-Judgement "Pass"  that most gives Google and Robocars.

Agreed!

Dick

[Jerry Schneider]

At 07:27 AM 5/25/2012, you wrote:
>Jerry
>
>This is an example of a mathematical logic approach to putting the
>outer limits on the equation to be solved. This is the first few
>chapters in the text book on advanced math. Take the limits and
>check for discontinuities. Higher math is just another critical
>tool to be applied to any problem. If it accidentally takes down
>another view then so be it. It is a common thing because it is
>based on this math approach. The number exercise was just taking
>the full version and give it numbers to compare. Once I exceeded my
>calculator digits and dropped to scientific notation on my screen I
>knew my message was lost. Thus waxing philosophical on what the
>public can endure with large numbers. Google is aware of taking
>limits and looking at things from an analytic view. If any argument
>is to penetrate there it will be higher math. They know how to
>apply limits. A phased introduction only leads to the full
>implementation so you have to assess where it is going in the end.

The problems with using the "upper limits" approach are much larger
than the numbers on your calculator. Yes, there
is some counting type logic but there are also lots of unsupported
assumptions and relationships (some are probably non-linear or
include discontinuities) that render the conclusions suspect at the
very least. And, since many of the factors that need to be consider
are not quantifiable, the subjective content ( if done wholistically)
is considerable).

If the autonomous car cannot be offered at a price the masses can
afford, then it isn't likely to cover the planet any time soon.
Can you explain why a parallel parking app costs $4,000?

I didn't know Google was in the car selling business or car
manufacturing business - do you expect them to post a price for a
produce that the don't have? It's an important question and one that
needs some investigation and forecasting.

>I might have mixed up my cost story some throwing everything in one
>pile. The data package on your telephone is one cost that will be
>similarly incurred with interconnected cars. Bandwidth is not free
>and server farms are not free. Again Google does not divulge the
>cost of their server farms. It is substantial of course. Costs do
>come down because that industry trends down. Cars --- not so
>much. Their pricing trends up and has for my lifetime. Only Henry
>Ford alone trended car prices down. He caught considerable flack
>from his investors for doing so. The data subscription monthly
>charge is the model for getting cash from the public. The car
>interconnect will be buried in the in-flight (car) movies and video
>games but it will be expensive and one more way they can monetize
>the self-driving car. I am not saying that customer's won't like
>paying the price for the service. I am just suggesting that the
>cost will be spread out so it seems more painless.

And vigorous competition (world-wide) may also have some influence on
the price. An important question is whether the hardware and software
can be readily installed on any car or only some cars (or trucks) and
whether the regulations at the state level will present some
limitations in this regard.

> I will always apply limits to any presented concept. I am an engineer.

Yes, that is a useful exercise in some cases where the assumptions
are limited or are not required and where there are few if an factors
and relationships that simply can't be quantified. I don't think it
is helpful in this case.

[Richard Gronning]

On 5/25/2012 12:46 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:

At 07:51 AM 5/25/2012, you wrote:

Interesting post Jack!
I learned several years ago that the transportation folks actually have a study for societal impact. It's called a, "Community Impact Assessment." (CIA) Since this tool is available, I've advocated using it to promote advanced concepts in transportation for some years.

An "assessment" is supposed to describe pros and cons - it's use as an advocacy tool should depend on the balance between the two - difficult as it is to sum them up.

But my belief system - belief in PRT & advanced transportation systems - says that such an unbiased tool would turn up significantly more pros than cons. I would like to know about the cons. If/when they are known, they can be addressed.

They are filled with dubious assumptions and items that cannot be easily quantified. They are essentially forecasts.

But, aren't all such studies merely assumptions? How accurate have ridership studies ever been?  How accurate have the cost studies ever been?

Dick

[Jack Slade]

Re This statement only:>>>>

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 2:19:48 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show>

> >>>I didn't know Google was in the car selling business or car manufacturing business - do you expect them to post a price for a produce that the don't have? It's an important question and one that needs some investigation and forecasting.<<<<

 

This is exactly what has been asked of those of us who propose other systems.  If it is fair for us,  why is it not fair to ask Google the same question?

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:22 AM 5/25/2012, you wrote:
>On 5/25/2012 12:46 PM, Jerry Schneider wrote:
>>At 07:51 AM 5/25/2012, you wrote:
>>>Interesting post Jack!
>>>I learned several years ago that the transportation folks actually
>>>have a study for societal impact. It's called a, "Community Impact
>>>Assessment." (CIA) Since this tool is available, I've advocated
>>>using it to promote advanced concepts in transportation for some years.
>>
>>An "assessment" is supposed to describe pros and cons - it's use as
>>an advocacy tool should depend on the balance between the two -
>>difficult as it is to sum them up.
>But my belief system - belief in PRT & advanced transportation
>systems - says that such an unbiased tool would turn up
>significantly more pros than cons. I would like to know about the
>cons. If/when they are known, they can be addressed.

The cons can be guessed at but can't be observed until a test system
is built and operated for some time. Same thing for the pros unless
you are willing to use beliefs rather than observations.

>>They are filled with dubious assumptions and items that cannot be
>>easily quantified. They are essentially forecasts.
>But, aren't all such studies merely assumptions? How accurate have
>ridership studies ever been? How accurate have the cost studies ever been?

It depends on how much data one has to work with and when you don't
have any data, you fabricate it based on assumptions. Travel demand
forecasting had and used quite a bit of historical data in the old
days when large scale surveys
were conducted to gather it. That's not done anymore - too expensive.
The test of a travel demand model is to see if it
can replicate reasonably well what has been observed in the past.
That is you have data for 1990 and 2000 to use in constructing your
mathematical model. Then you input the 1990 data and see how close it
comes to 2000. If it
is close enough, you then use it to forecast 2010 using some
assumptions about how you think (assume) some of the variables and
relationships will change 2000-2010 and then generate the 2010 demand
forecasts. They will not be "accurate" but so many things have
happened that you didn't know were going to happen but you still
hopes they will be "close" to what you observe in 2010.
Unfortunately, if the forecasts don't meet with the approval of the
decision-makers, they can be easily manipulated until they do - and
this happens frequently, according to some of my former students who
have told me about it.
It's next to impossible to prove it as one has to understand what's
going on inside the "black box" (i.e. math model) and only a very few
people have that knowledge (i.e. the forecasting priesthood). When
2010 rolls around and the "closeness" is evident, there are a million
reasons why available - but the investments decisions have already
been made and it's often too late to stop them. One such result is
the Las Vegas monorail. There are many, many others. As for cost
forecasts, how do you know what the price of steel will be in 2020?


In my opinion, there is no such thing as an accurate forecast. Some
are closer than others is the best you can say. Population forecasts
tend to be among the closest.

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703734504575125883649914708.html 

That is the going price for self parking since 2006.  " get a better sense of whether they are worth the extra cost, which can run up to $4,500. "  I assume the sticker price is bull and the buyer can negotiate to a lower price like $4,000.  As for who sells what.  The android phone is made by one company and the OS is another.  I would guess that they would use the same business model and leverage their position to their best advantage.  I would expect nothing less.  If that means a bolt-on mod for the big boys that is probably what will occur.  All speculation of course till it rattles out of the chute.  

The burning question was which is higher priced and an upper limit is the only valid way to look at two systems side by side if one is to push the other out of business.  If they are going to be out in the market at the same time then we are talking about market share.  

I believe that energy will dominate and that guideway energy efficiency will dominate and self-driving will be a cute approx. $4000 list price option on cars just like air conditioning is an "option" on cars.  (not really in Texas)  It is that silly price game car dealers do that drives away business they don't know they are losing.  If self-driving cars can ignore highway maintenance costs then to compare you have to consider the drastic energy cost difference.  You also have to consider any additional lane miles for population increase in any calm comparison.  I contend that highway specification creep has created prohibitive costs for any present city to add needed lane miles even with self-driving.  

The latest message from the oil guys is we can frack till the United States ground gives up its treasure.  If they know anything about the slow process of optimizing total oil extraction they know better that fracking will give a one shot jump then it goes dry yet again.  Short answers for a long problem.  If you don't do a limits analysis it will be foolish and seriously dangerous.  Arguing about whether a self-parking option costs $4000 or $4500 is insane compared to the coming energy disaster if we don't drastically change course.  Adding robo steering and foot pedal movement is not the part of the car that needs to be fixed today.  It is cute and spiffy but the grown ups need to stand up at some point and do the important changes not drive for a driver.  It is redundant so even at $1.00 not of national value.  To look at the car cost you have to include the oil filters brake pads and liquid fuel.  These have to be supplied for 10 years for cars I drive.  They dwarf the price of the option that parks the car because you only pay initial price once with some falsely low interest right now.  

Compare the price of a self-driven car and a driver driven car.  Where is the ROI?  How is money made to pay off the $4000 plus interest on $4000 if the driver lets the steering wheel move through his hands while he watches the road?  I see it more as robot wars and a fun game to fill time than fixing the highway system.  

Since in my day job I install after market electronics to police cars and bucket trucks etc.  I can tell you that an add on version of this will be easy to fit on every available vehicle format.  The software will allow it to harmonize with the driving time constants for any one vehicle.  We haven't hit a vehicle we can't retrofit with idle reduction.  Self-driving is the same thing to add on either at the dealer or at the factory.  

I am sure I did not fully explain why ultra high speed circuits are more expensive but the price is the price and it is high so far.  

Jerry Roane  

[Bruff]

Jack @ "(About) taking a trip on a plane that is fully automated, I
would have to be 'Nuts". Since I can only program a computer to deal

with problems that I know, or even anticipate, how do I program it to
deal with the ones that I do not know about,  or one that has never
happened before?"

The numbers speak for themselves. http://www.scsi-inc.com/AAI.php 85%
of aviation accidents are human error. 70% pilot.
What would you rather have: your pilot gawking the view and running
through a flock of geese and then, instead of returning to the airport
of departure - a piece of cake - splash your butt into a filthy river
in the middle of the winter OR
or a botpilot that didn't snooze or gawk the view (meaning would have
seen and avoided the birds), had constantly unfolding situational
awareness that took into consideration available landings spots and
current conditions, knew instantly the problem and what to do, and
didn't suffer from the pucker factor that grips all humanoids when
push comes to splash...?
Yes, there are always those who feel that when their lucky day
arrives, they will be in the minute minority where something new and
unexpected arrives. Hence better to have the human. Reminds me of an
acquaintance who refuses to buckle up because he'd heard of someone
dying in a fiery wreck when they couldn't get their seat belt off.
This from a pilot who's had too many times in the air wishing he were
on the ground. Or had a bot on board that knew exactly what to do.

On May 24, 12:32 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Kirston,  I am with you on this one.  The best example is this,  and I must explain why I say it.  My background is mostly aviation,  and I am familiar with the automated systems on aircraft.  Having said that, here is what I feel about taking a trip on a plane that is fully automated,  that is NO Pilot.
>
> I would have to be 'Nuts".  Computers can be programmed to deal with situations that are known or at least anticipated.   With every emergency that happens,  there is always some factor that was unusual:  something happened that both the builder and the operator did not anticipate.  This means that the computer would not be programmed to handle it either.
>
> The same applies to cars.  With over sixty years of driving all over North America you might think that I would have seen everything bad that can happen on the road.  Think again.  Every week somebody out there does something different from what I have ever seen before.
>
> So:  Since I can only program a computer to deal with problems that I know, or even anticipate, how do I program it to deal with the ones that I do not know about,  or one that has never happened before?
>
> Jack Slade
>

> From: Kirston Henderson <kirston.hender...@megarail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> >Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:48:20 AM

> >Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show
>

> >On May 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jerry Schneider wrote:
>
> >> Judging by the way he perked up when asked about the Google car, I think that Larry Page has been a driving force behind the development effort. Perhaps it would help if KH would spend some time getting acquainted with LP and the way he thinks.
>
> >    I presume that I am the KH that you refer to.  If so, I doubt it because we obviously live in different worlds.  (We may not even speak the same language.)  I have enough trouble with mid-western English.  I may not have worked for the great Googe, but I have a lot of years experience developing advanced systems using computers, including the means that modern, distributed computers communicate and are programmed.
>
> >    I also am beginning to accumulate a significant amount of experience in developing guideway-based vehicles wherein the computing requirements are relatively modest but by the time that you develop systems with the essential levels of automated self-testing and failure tolerance to make them safe for human use, you find a lot of hurdles working with only a single dimension wherein you have near absolute control over the operating environment.  If you add all of the other dimensions and multitude of environmental factors, the problem becomes impractical to solve.  Not only that, if you manage to do it, just how much have you contributed to solving the problems of congestion and air pollution caused by the current set of automobiles and big trucks?
>
> >Kirston Henderson
>

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

[Dennis Manning]

Bruff you make some good points. So far as I can tell wherever human
functions have been taken over by automation/computer techniques the result
is greater safety, such as operating elevators.

I think there is general unease in thinking about the jobs computers can
take from humans. It's the modern "luddite" experience.

Dennis

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruff" <daveb...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 9:17 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie

> --

[Jack Slade]

Everybody is free to make his own choice:  Mine is to have somebody on board who knows what to do if the computer is presented with a problem that it has not been programmed to assess,  that is unless you feel that the programmers back in the factory know everything.  I know aviation well enough to know that this is not true.  Remember the moon mission that had problems that a computer could never be programmed to handle?  In a car you have even less time to intercede,  because traffic is so much closer.

 

I do not think that it will always be this way,  just that we are not yet at the point where human oversight can be terminated.  This means that people who are blind,  or underage,  may get to use cars alone sometime,  but not yet,  in spite of the hype.

 

Alternately,  anybody who can use an elevator should have no problems with PRT.

 

As to the problems you point out with people who fly airplanes:  What do you expect,  somebody who rigidly grips the control column with both hands, white-knockled,   while staring constantly straight ahead out the windshield? Would you really fly with such a person? 

 

Jack Slade

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

> >For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

--

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

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

[Richard Gronning]

Jack;

"The current state of computers" is a good point. In flying, if we take the pilot out of the aircraft and put him/her in a ground control station, it isn't exactly automation. A point about pilots being removed from the cockpit is that it also means that if the plane has an accident, then the person in the ground control station suffers no physical harm (unless some irate family member attacks him/her later on.) The point is that the situation removes some responsibility.

One reason that I got involved with PRT and advanced transportation is that I could see that there are other ways of removing responsibility, responsibly. The BEST way is to remove the chances of problems. We can do this by removing variables. A vehicle on an elevated or subterranean guideway removes a host of variables. In this case, complete automation has a chance of working in its current state. The number of variables in both driving and flying are astronomical and, therefore, incalculable. Limit the variables and we have a chance.

Dick

[Bruff]

Jack -
About the white knuckles, the thing is, except for during initial
training, they usually don't appear until .7 seconds after the Oh shit
occurs. As for your question ("What would (I) expect in a pilot"),
it's this: one that maintained control of the aircraft at all times,
did not sleep on the job, had constant situational awareness, would
instantly understand and (correctly) react to any issue (including
being proactive enough to head off most), and when it did screw up,
didn't have an Airline Bot-Pilot's Association to hide behind. The
only thing I don't care to have programmed into my botpilot are the
two most famous last words in aviation.

As for situations that the computer is not programmed to assess, a
review of the evening news reveals the unique ways that people dream
up to remove themselves from the gene pool, and in that regard,
everyone who flies (or for that matter, drives) is a guinea pig.
Fortunately, we have the NTSBs and TSB's that, in most cases, come up
with solutions, which (unfortunately) don't do much for the deceased.
But do play a role in future interventions. Like they say: "Live and
learn".

What surprises me about Jack is, given his long history advocating bot
transport (aka PRT), why, in (apparent and complete) disregard of the
statistics, he's so adamant about keeping the human driver.

Dave Brough

"Oh Shit" May 27, 1:24 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Everybody is free to make his own choice:  Mine is to have somebody on board who knows what to do if the computer is presented with a problem that it has not been programmed to assess,  that is unless you feel that the programmers back in the factory know everything.  I know aviation well enough to know that this is not true.  Remember the moon mission that had problems that a computer could never be programmed to handle?  In a car you have even less time to intercede,  because traffic is so much closer.
>
> I do not think that it will always be this way,  just that we are not yet at the point where human oversight can be terminated.  This means that people who are blind,  or underage,  may get to use cars alone sometime,  but not yet,  in spite of the hype.
>
> Alternately,  anybody who can use an elevator should have no problems with PRT.
>
> As to the problems you point out with people who fly airplanes:  What do you expect,  somebody who rigidly grips the control column with both hands, white-knockled,   while staring constantly straight ahead out the windshield? Would you really fly with such a person?
>
> Jack Slade
>

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

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

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

[Jack Slade]

I will let you know whan I have enough faith in computers to drive me around.  Re-read Dick's last osting. You sound like a VFR pilot who just doesn't know how much time, especially during landings and takeoffs, an IFR pilot can devote to gawking out the window.  Got your IFR ticket yet?

 

Jack Slade

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

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

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

> >For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

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

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

[WALTER BREWER]

In ground response backup, I did not mean just to put the pilot on the ground when flyung the aircraft. I think that is the way drones fly now, and are able to make most decisions as pilots in the cockpit.

 

I was thinking normal trips would be with fully automated aircraft, T/O and Landing.

The grpund response piolet would get into the act only when som anao,oly was sensed, and could not be corrected by the aircraft's automatic system. "Described by some as something not programed into the airchraft's computed", and not helped with  a redundent computer.

The ground response piolet wold be able to do everything an airbore pilot could do to resolve the issue. But pilots would not have to be paid for those "hours of boredom" on each aircraft. Their special skills would be applied only as needed.

And there would be a computer programming learning curve to incorporate these special hopefully infrequent incidents.

No doubut Dick can name some cases that neather pilot could correct. Vertical tail came off an airplane leaving JFK few years ago.(Incidently becase the pilot was using the rudder inproperly). Serious. Mechanic didn't close all fasteners on aninspection door. Probably survivable, etc?

 

All this thread seems a bit off  subject, but guess it is part of sizing up the Robocar competion, or marriage.

But isn't thee a "response pilot" function needed for a mature area covered PRT installation?

Want to bet there are computer gremlins that didn;t get programmed out?

Short of shutting down a large system segment, cant a "responder manager" make a fix?

 

Walt Brewer

- ----- Original Message ----From: Richard Gronning

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:44 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

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

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

[Jack Slade]

Are you sure we are there yet?  Ground control could not get that drone that was hijacked by Iran to turn back,  and it could not have done much for that DC10 that had #2 engine explode;  the pilots on board did manage to save half the people on board.  My point is that,  after 50 years of experimenting and developement,  we still don't have it perfected,  so work continues.  

This will all help in robocar developement,  no doubt,  but don't count on it too soon.

The other point is:  What is robocar going to do for us when we do get it right?

I can't agree with the Ford/ Microsoft concept that 4 times as many cars are going to be able to operate on existing roads.  Lots of luck with that,  but I think some people are letting their imagination get ahead of their greed.   However, it will sell a lot of cars (Ford) and computers (Microsoft)  which is their aim.

 

How Google plans to profit with this none of us have figured out,  at least not yet.  The reputation of the Big3 is that they spend a lot more money working around other peoples patents than they do buying them out,  or paying royalties.

 

Jack Slade  

[Bruff]

"The ground response pilot would get into the act only when some
anomaly was sensed that could not be corrected by the aircraft's
automatic system."

Exactly, Walt. Case in point, although this woman pulled it off with
someone on the ground talking her down, I'm sure she wished that that
someone were actually handling the controls.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/02/80-year-old-woman-lands-plane-after-pilot-husband-drops-dead/
The way I see it, in a pickle, PRT would act similarly -- someone
somewhere monitoring the operation on a screen and able to remotely
operate the pod, in this case, shunting it into a station or, in the
event of an emergency (heart attach, etc.), re-routing it to the
closest hospital on the grid.

Dave Brough

[Dennis Manning]

I don't think comparing PRT to airplanes is nearly as useful as learning from APM experiences.

 

Dennis

[Jerry Schneider]

At 04:29 PM 5/27/2012, you wrote:
>I don't think comparing PRT to airplanes is nearly as useful as
>learning from APM experiences.

I agree. I suppose there may have been papers presented at the
International APM conferences that provide descriptions of some of
this experience but access to them is limited to a fairly large
payment to ASCE (or a library copy if you can find one). And, I
suppose only the "successful" experiences have been documented. Or
maybe there is something on-line - I've not looked.

[Jerry Schneider]

I suppose one could infer some of the problems that have occurred
with APMs by closely examining the standards documents - now 4
volumes which can be purchased for $176. Assuming if there is a
"standard" it is a response to
a "problem", past or prospective. I wonder how many of these
documents have been sold in the global market. I will see if I can
find out. The most recent APM application I have seen is at the Hong
Kong airport (via google). Did the Chinese use the APM standards or
devise their own? That might depend on what vendor supplied the
system - probably Bombardier.

[Bruff]

"... the Big3 spend a lot more money working around other peoples

patents than they do buying them out,  or paying royalties."

Or outright stealing them, as was the Robert and Goliath dustup with
Bob Kearns' battle after Ford stole his intermittent windshield wiper
patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_of_Genius_(film)
Anyone thinking of patenting their Flash of Genius should consider the
film as required viewing.

Dave Brough

On May 27, 5:00 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Are you sure we are there yet?  Ground control could not get that drone that was hijacked by Iran to turn back,  and it could not have done much for that DC10 that had #2 engine explode;  the pilots on board did manage to save half the people on board.  My point is that,  after 50 years of experimenting and developement,  we still don't have it perfected,  so work continues.
> This will all help in robocar developement,  no doubt,  but don't count on it too soon.
> The other point is:  What is robocar going to do for us when we do get it right?
> I can't agree with the Ford/ Microsoft concept that 4 times as many cars are going to be able to operate on existing roads.  Lots of luck with that,  but I think some people are letting their imagination get ahead of their greed.   However, it will sell a lot of cars (Ford) and computers (Microsoft)  which is their aim.
>
> How Google plans to profit with this none of us have figured out,  at least not yet.  The reputation of the Big3 is that they spend a lot more money working around other peoples patents than they do buying them out,  or paying royalties.
>
> Jack Slade
>

> >>For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Bruff]

As for "...(me) sounding like a VFR pilot who just doesn't know how

much time, especially during landings and takeoffs, an IFR pilot can

devote to gawking out the window", the best I can come up with is,
until I break out or arrive at the MDA, very little.

"Got your IFR ticket yet?"

Affirmative...along with something very few other pilots (7% is the
figure I heard), including 'hero' Sullenberger possess: a seaplane
rating.

Jack, I could return in-kind by asking if you even have a private
ticket, which I know you don't (I do gather that you were aircrew with
Canada's Martime Command - Argus out of Greenwood?). But I won't use
that as an excuse to deny you the right to talk intelligently about
one of our shared passions: aviation. I would, however, request that
you not get overly personal.

Dave Brough

On May 27, 11:32 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I will let you know whan I have enough faith in computers to drive me around.  Re-read Dick's last osting. You
>

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

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

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

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

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

[Jack Slade]

OK,  agreed:  however,  even though I have not seen the official investigation report of the landing on the Hudson,   I do believe that they agreed with Sully,  even though you don't.  My airplane was the old Lancaster,  and operated mostly from an airport right at the edge of the Pacific.  There were always lots of birds around when I went swimming,  but I don't ever remember seeing one from the air on takeoff or landing.  I do believe that you miss seeing some things when you go faster, especially small things,  andthe one you are going to hit is not the one straight in front of you,  if it is moving also.

 

Jack Slade

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

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

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

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

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

> >For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

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

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

[WALTER BREWER]

Jack,

No, and neither have PRT or Robocar.

And Dick may be right Passenger airplanes may never want to be fully automatic to save even pilot's fantastic pay.

While airplanes have flexibility of destination w/o guideways, they have to fight speed of ound limits in creating thrust, and need to create liveable atmosphere for occupamts.

Also have to pay for  prosses of conbustion on board.

And they can't stop in flight to fix things.

Tube transpotation can create the low drag medium, and thrust with  sources that are not on board.

(Should I be happy to be a retire aeronautical engineer?)

 

Agree with Dennis airplanes are too complex to proof of concept for PRT automation. Six basic degrees of dynamic freedon compared to only 1.5 for PRT associated with guideways. 0.5 is for switching to on/off line loaing.

But if APM  mean sback and forth trains like Orlando/Denver airports, I suggest they are too simple. PRT hasn;t taken the step yet to being an area network.

 

Walt Brewer

[Jack Slade]

Morgantown,  if you accept that as a variation of PRT,  seems to have had no insurmountable troubles with the automation that operates it,  even the equipment is from the earliest days of computerization.  I know of nothing lacking there,  do you?

[Dennis Manning]

Walt:

 

I might argue that both Heathrow, Masdar, and Morgantown are networks and not just APM loops or shuttles. They are very simple to be sure, but any vehicle can go non-stop to any station. APMs cannot do that.

 

Dennis

[Jerry Schneider]

At 03:41 PM 5/28/2012, you wrote:
>Walt:
>
>I might argue that both Heathrow, Masdar, and Morgantown are
>networks and not just APM loops or shuttles. They are very simple to
>be sure, but any vehicle can go non-stop to any station. APMs cannot do that.

That's true for Morgantown, but do Heathrow and Masdar have more than
two stations? I wonder if airport-type APMs could be reprogrammed to
do it with some new software and hardware? Or maybe a driverless
train like Duabi-Metro could provide skip-stop service that might be
needed for special events, or at certain times of the day, for example.

[Dennis Manning]

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 5:20 PM

To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on
Charlie Rose show

You are right. Masdar has only 2 stations. Heathrow has 3. The question is
can a vehicle go to each of the other stations non-stop at passengers
choice. If not I'll have eat my words and agree that only Morgantown has the
semblance of a network.

[Jack Slade]

Why?  PRT is 10 times cheaper and has 6 other conveniences/advantages that trains do not have. 

What is this crap that every good idea has to be turned into a train? 

 

I thought this list was supposed to be about innovation.  Do some of you think that remodelling a train is innovation?  I don't,  because that has been done for over 200 years and most people ride it only as a last resort,  when there is nothing else available.  I haven't been on one for over 50 years.  How many others of you are frequent riders like me?

 

Jack Slade

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

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 8:20:47 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

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

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

[Jeff Davis]

Jerry,

Regarding; "I wonder if airport-type APMs could be reprogrammed to do it with some new software and hardware?"

 

The answer is yes, modern, and not so modern automatic train control software/hardware is capable of managing a network of trains, or vehicles, such as PRT vehicles.  There are existing automated systems that have interacting routes serving different areas.  A perfect example of such a network using fixed-block older technology was Airtrans at DFW Airport (currently de-commissioned).  It was a network that consisted of unidirectional guideways, switches, multiple routes, and both off-line and in-line stations, including routes interacting with each other.  Modern automatic train controls can do the same thing via either fixed-block or Communications Based Train Control (CBTC).

 

Concerning automated transportation systems at airports, it just turns out that quite often simple loops (full loop, single or double pinched loops), or shuttle configurations solve the transportation problem just fine.  Complex networks such as something needed to serve a major metropolitan area are not needed.

 

Jeff

 

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

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

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

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

[Richard Gronning]

On 5/28/2012 9:14 PM, Dennis Manning wrote:
> You are right. Masdar has only 2 stations.

Doesn't Masdar have 5 stations? Only 2 of them are passenger stations.
it doesn't subtract from the fact that there are 5, non-stop departure
and arrival stations, does it?

> Heathrow has 3. The question is can a vehicle go to each of the other
> stations non-stop at passengers choice. If not I'll have eat my words
> and agree that only Morgantown has the semblance of a network.

To the point, Morgantown actually can be run as a non-stop network. If
they choose not to, it shouldn't detract from this ability.

[WALTER BREWER]

Doesn't this thread drop a few hints that we need more than APM experience;
even more testing to help verify full scale PRT networks?



How much experience do we have with switching on/off a 60mph main line
from off line load/unload sites?

For the slow down or stop cases being discussed, what does the SYSTEM do
to minimize throughput impact? Re-route veicles if other options exist?
Handle queuing at load points?

Can this re-shuffle be automated, or need a human respose "pilot"?

Walt Brewer



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

From: "Richard Gronning" <rgro...@gofast.am>
To: <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on
Charlie Rose show

[Dennis Manning]

Jack:

 

Glad to see you put it that way. It seems to be cemented into planners brains that only trains are suitable for high speed intercity ground transportation.. Single high speed vehicles ala PRT are what's needed. Why is riding a train seen as the only way?

 

High speed trains only connect major stations in bigger cities. Access points are about 50 miles apart. HS PRT can be accessible in every city not only along a major corridor but in a given area. The ridership for the PRT network would be vastly higher than any train system. Déjà vu all over again. HS personal vehicle versus mass transit. MT gets 2%. small vehicle gets 98%.

 

Dennis

 

 

From: Jack Slade

Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 11:54 PM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

Why?  PRT is 10 times cheaper and has 6 other conveniences/advantages that trains do not have. 

What is this crap that every good idea has to be turned into a train? 

 

I thought this list was supposed to be about innovation.  Do some of you think that remodelling a train is innovation?  I don't,  because that has been done for over 200 years and most people ride it only as a last resort,  when there is nothing else available.  I haven't been on one for over 50 years.  How many others of you are frequent riders like me?

 

Jack Slade

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 8:20:47 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Re: Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

At 03:41 PM 5/28/2012, you wrote:
> Walt:
>
> I might argue that both Heathrow, Masdar, and Morgantown are networks and not just APM loops or shuttles. They are very simple to be sure, but any vehicle can go non-stop to any station. APMs cannot do that.

That's true for Morgantown, but do Heathrow and Masdar have more than two stations? I wonder if airport-type APMs could be reprogrammed to do it with some new software and hardware? Or maybe a driverless train like Duabi-Metro could provide skip-stop service that might be needed for special events, or at certain times of the day, for example.


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

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

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

[Dennis Manning]

If these systems are capable of doing controls in a network why is PRT such as ULTra at Heathrow being challenged as to whether they can operate in a larger more complex network. The suggestion here is that this control stuff is old hat. No problemo.

 

Dennis

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

[kirston henderson]

on 5/29/12 11:33 AM, Dennis Manning at john.m...@comcast.net wrote:

Jack:

Glad to see you put it that way. It seems to be cemented into planners brains that only trains are suitable for high speed intercity ground transportation.. Single high speed vehicles ala PRT are what's needed. Why is riding a train seen as the only way?

High speed trains only connect major stations in bigger cities. Access points are about 50 miles apart. HS PRT can be accessible in every city not only along a major corridor but in a given area. The ridership for the PRT network would be vastly higher than any train system. Déjà vu all over again. HS personal vehicle versus mass transit. MT gets 2%. small vehicle gets 98%.

Dennis

   That is the primary reason for our 120-mph MegaWay system which we expect to operate in the fully automated single vehicle mode soon after the first manual "train" system is built.

Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems

[eph]

I think the network "challenge" is what level of service can be expected, not so much whether podcars can be routed safely.  Empty vehicle handling, gridlock prevention, robustness, vehicle storage...

F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 11:09 AM 5/29/2012, you wrote:
>I think the network "challenge" is what level of service can be
>expected, not so much whether podcars can be routed safely. Empty
>vehicle handling, gridlock prevention, robustness, vehicle storage...

A big part of that problem (how much service) will depend on the
spatial distribution of demand, the wait-time objective, the storage
space for empty vehicles at stations and/or storage depots, storage
depot locations, ride-sharing incentives, homogeneity of the
population, fare structure, time of day, day of week, seating
capacity of vehicles, etc.

[Michael Weidler]

I wonder where you son's hotel is located? If I'm reading the map correctly, there is a subway stop on the same block as the Google building.

---

From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

Jerry

My son who works for Google is in New York right now and his hike from the hotel to the Google site is 20 minutes.  He tried his California shoes the first two days and wore blisters in his feet so now he has dressed down to tennis shoes in a city where they all dress up compared to the other coast.  Having a walking perspective of the traffic flow in that part of NY is different way of looking at this problem.  I assume there is not a subway to hop on if he is hiking 20 full minutes in that part of New York.  I guess the subway is only for some subset of the city.  

I would love to build a 180 mph guideway between the new Google New York office and reasonably priced apartments.  My son said one of his co-workers who is there pays $3,000 a month for his little apartment and walks further than his hotel at 20 minutes.  I paid $9,000 for my first mansion just out of school.    (in a federal target area in south central Fort Worth)  

If Google could fix the housing issue for Manhattan they would not need to pay those guys a big premium to work at that office.  The premium for those high tech workers at the top of their game must be tremendous.  Certainly more money spent going no where (neither Google nor the employees) on pay premiums than buying a few miles of extrusion at $200,000 per mile.  

The hard part is getting to the level within Google where ideas are accepted.  I have talked with the worker dudes inside the car program and they have to protect their turf and advise that what they are working on is the best thing ever.  If a clear communication could be made to Larry Page about the gain to Google New York office specifically by building a link between affordable apartments and their new office he would certainly make more money for Google and New York would have incrementally less foot traffic to their office.  They see the value of the Google bus obviously above the price of the bus where they let workers work on the bus.  Walking 40 minutes a day is non-productive and you can't wear your California shoes apparently.  4mph walking speed for a younger worker says the trip is 2.66 miles wasted effort and at 180 mph that is 30 seconds per trip plus 18.6 seconds to accelerate and decelerate.    

Housing and office space that are accessible are required to make the pay premium for attracting workers to that office without breaking the bank.  Advanced transportation like a grown up Shweeb would solve that problem and improve the life style of Google workers over all other workers in New York City by thousands of dollars per worker per month's rent.  

Many large companies have used the model where they create a company store and company living arrangements.  This typically was a reverse situation where the company was located in a remote location like a copper mine or a chemical plant.  This is trying to place a big company in a city that is already full and has rent controlled weirdness screwing up the free market for living accommodations.  Only Google is big enough and has enough vision and thought for their workers to build a company in a major full city but look at it like a remote company installation in an empty space.  If they built the apartments and built the offices as well as  the physical link between the two it would be very much like a Dow Chemical building a magnesium plant on the gulf coast.  They have to supply both the factory and housing as well as a way to get from one to the other.  To get land prices compatible with housing you have to move further from the city center and that creates mobility need.  If one mile is good then 9 miles is better for getting a better land price to build employee housing or contracting for a developer to build.  At 9 miles the commute is 3 minutes so the wasted time for workers would not justify pulling out the lap top and rebooting their Windows 7 if they are not using their Apples.  At land prices in Northern New York the commute could be 27 miles away or 9 minutes.  Somewhere there is an optimum for land price rent and transportation cost.  In all cases it takes Google traffic off the Manhattan sidewalks.  Freeing them up for New Yorkers who already live there.  

Jerry Roane 

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

He talked a little about the Google driverless car but lots of other very interesting material as well.  I think it can be seen at the CR website - takes about an hour. He said the traffic in the Silicon Valley is worse now than in Manhattan, where he was today. Google is starting up an office in Manhattan that will be home for some research people from Cornell and the Technion in Israel.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To post to this group, send email to transport-innovators@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

[Michael Weidler]

RADAR (directed radio waves) doesn't do anything the humans. And LASERs don't do anything unless you are looking directly into the source of a high intensity beam. The LASER beams in question are both low power and invisible (infrared).

---

From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:07 PM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

Not perfection,  but close to it.   To do this for PRT is not easy...nobody ever said it was...but it has far fewer problems to deal with than a road vehicle has.   Problems on a guideway are easier to define,  and are not subject to the same variations as roads.  

 

Would I like to be able to tell my car where to take me today,  and to go park itself when I get there?  You bet I would.  However,  I am not in such a frenzy of anticipation that I am willing ignore obstacles that are real,  in the hope that future technology will soon solve them.

 

I suggest you pose a couple of safety questions to these people.  1.   Have you given any thought to what laser and radar pulses may do to the eyes of perestrians over a long period of time?

 

I have posted that question here on the list,  and everybody ignores it.  Why?

 

Jack Slade

From: Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 11:29:13 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

You seem to be asking for perfection. With the criteria you suggest how can PRT ever be good enough?

 

Dennis

From: Jack Slade

Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 11:32 PM

To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

Kirston,  I am with you on this one.  The best example is this,  and I must explain why I say it.  My background is mostly aviation,  and I am familiar with the automated systems on aircraft.  Having said that, here is what I feel about taking a trip on a plane that is fully automated,  that is NO Pilot.

 

I would have to be 'Nuts".  Computers can be programmed to deal with situations that are known or at least anticipated.   With every emergency that happens,  there is always some factor that was unusual:  something happened that both the builder and the operator did not anticipate.  This means that the computer would not be programmed to handle it either.

 

The same applies to cars.  With over sixty years of driving all over North America you might think that I would have seen everything bad that can happen on the road.  Think again.  Every week somebody out there does something different from what I have ever seen before.

 

So:  Since I can only program a computer to deal with problems that I know, or even anticipate, how do I program it to deal with the ones that I do not know about,  or one that has never happened before?

 

Jack Slade

From: Kirston Henderson <kirston....@megarail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 12:48:20 AM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

On May 23, 2012, at 11:06 AM, Jerry Schneider wrote:

> Judging by the way he perked up when asked about the Google car, I think that Larry Page has been a driving force behind the development effort. Perhaps it would help if KH would spend some time getting acquainted with LP and the way he thinks.

    I presume that I am the KH that you refer to.  If so, I doubt it because we obviously live in different worlds.  (We may not even speak the same language.)  I have enough trouble with mid-western English.  I may not have worked for the great Googe, but I have a lot of years experience developing advanced systems using computers, including the means that modern, distributed computers communicate and are programmed.

    I also am beginning to accumulate a significant amount of experience in developing guideway-based vehicles wherein the computing requirements are relatively modest but by the time that you develop systems with the essential levels of automated self-testing and failure tolerance to make them safe for human use, you find a lot of hurdles working with only a single dimension wherein you have near absolute control over the operating environment.  If you add all of the other dimensions and multitude of environmental factors, the problem becomes impractical to solve.  Not only that, if you manage to do it, just how much have you contributed to solving the problems of congestion and air pollution caused by the current set of automobiles and big trucks?

Kirston Henderson

--You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

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

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

[Michael Weidler]

Here are some links for CIA

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/community_impact_assessment/index.cfm

http://www.ciatrans.net/CIA_Quick_Reference/Purpose.html

http://www.ciatrans.net/

---

From: Richard Gronning <rgro...@gofast.am>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 9:51 AM

Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

Interesting post Jack!
I learned several years ago that the transportation folks actually have a study for societal impact. It's called a, "Community Impact Assessment." (CIA) Since this tool is available, I've advocated using it to promote advanced concepts in transportation for some years.
Dick

On 5/24/2012 6:56 PM, Jack Slade wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 7:02:25 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

>>>> Well, it has been at least 40 years since some reasonable PRT concepts were defined Since then there have been alternative designs, and some minimal levels of cussing and discussing. Widespread visibility and public interest levels are still dismal.

Autonomous vehicles are relatively new on the scene and have gotten more broad and high level attention in the last few years that PRT has gotten in 40 years. We need to see what might be possible in terms of an evolutionary path, some decent cost estimates, some decent societal impact estimates (i.e. benefit/cost) and a whole lot more before a credible "better" judgment can be made.<<<

 

Here we go again.  How can you say there are no "decent cost estimates"?  What is a "decent societal impact estimate"?  Do you mean approval by the academic society...the same type of people who changed Morgantown to GRT because they could not get their little minds around the PRT concept?

 

How can we get any of this if ALL the money goes into failed projects,  one at a time? And what do you mean by "it has been at least 40 years since some reasonable PRT concepts were defined"?

 

Jack Slade

> F.
>
>
> On Thursday, 24 May 2012 15:59:35 UTC-4, jschneider wrote:
> At 12:03 PM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
> >I think that if you roll in the environmental cost, health care
> >costs, insurance costs, fuel costs, vehicle costs, maintenance cost,
> >etc. AND extra infrastructure to handle all these robocars, a case
> >can be made for guideway + cheaper, smaller, shorter-range electric
> >cars (DM).  Unfortunately, many of these impacts aren't reflected in
> >the perceived cost of car driving.  My statement was "overall cost"
> >- which includes societal costs as I see it.  Google has made
> >selling DM that much more difficult by pushing it's vision that is
> >seen as "good enough".  That's a shame.
>
> Fair enough - if you include the potential savings that might arise
> from greatly improved safety and mobility services to groups that
> would benefit from it (elderly non-drives, blind people, drunk
> driving reductions, and so on). I would hope that someone on the
> Google team is doing such calculations on societal impact issues. So
> far, I've not see much on the subject with the exception of Tyler
> Folsom's excellent paper on the subject.
> Link to paper
> entitled<<http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/tyler-article.pdf>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/tyler-article.pdf>
> Social Ramifications of Autonomous Urban Land Vehicles, by Tyler C.
> Folsom (posted in 2010, my What's New page).
>
>
>
>
> >F.
> >
> >On Thursday, 24 May 2012 11:44:42 UTC-4, jschneider wrote:
> >At 05:59 AM 5/24/2012, you wrote:
> > >I think that the google approach is to slow down or stop if faced
> > >with something unanticipated, perhaps demanding driver
> > >intervention.  It's harder to just stop in an airplane, but
> > >acceptable (to some degree) on the road.  It may learn/record the
> > >correct response given the circumstance in the future.  If cars are
> > >made to communicate with Google (instant tracking, crowd sourcing),
> > >reviewed interventions can be propagated to other cars in the same
> > situation.
> > >
> > >I know everyone here wants it to fail and don't want to hear
> > >different, but it will probably "work" in the statistical sense
> > >where fatalities match or better human fatalities.  It's a shame
> > >this is what will be acceptable when near zero fatalities, no
> > >emissions, greater throughput and less overall cost would be
> > >possible with guideway based systems.
> >I'd be interested to know more about why you think "less overall
> >cost" - as it seems to me that lower cost (i.e. no guideway required)
> >is regarded as a very prominent reason that its supporters always
> >cite up front.
> >
> >- Jerry Schneider -
> >      Innovative Transportation Technologies
> >
> ><<http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washingto n.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >Groups "transport-innovators" group.

> >To view this discussion on the web visit
> ><<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJA oJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJAoJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/Hz1pfu0tJAoJ.
> >To post to this group, send email to <mailto:transport-...@googlegroups.com>transport-...@googlegroups.com.

> >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> ><mailto:transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>transpo rt-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> >For more options, visit this group at

> ><http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en>http://g roups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
>
> - Jerry Schneider -
>      Innovative Transportation Technologies
>
> <http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans>http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

> To view this discussion on the web visit <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/transport-innovators/-/woRPwwhI-_IJ.

> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innovators+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.

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

[Jack Slade]

No kidding?  So you think I am just talking bullshit.  Your microwave is a radar transmitter, 2.46 GHZ,

and if it did not have that metal screen with the little perforated holes,  which blocks that frequency, they would be deadly. (400 Watts of power).  If you hold a field strength meter near one and get any reading at all it does not meet specifications.

Do you know anybody who looks the other way when somebody shines a light at them?  The natural human reaction is to look at the light.  

 

Jack Slade 

From: Michael Weidler <pstr...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-...@googlegroups.com" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 7:32:39 PM
Subject: Re: [t-i] Larry Page, Google CEO, was the guest today on Charlie Rose show

RADAR (directed radio waves) doesn't do anything the humans. And LASERs don't do anything unless you are looking directly into the source of a high intensity beam. The LASER beams in question are both low power and invisible (infrared).