|
Copyright
© 2002-2003, Jeremiah (Jerry) R. Fass.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.
A copy of the license is here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html
For comments or if you have
additional questions contact Jerry Fass at: JFass at SkyTran.net
Contents
(Click on any FAQ below
to go to the answer. Click your BACK button to come back to this
list.)
General Issues
No such system has been built, so it cannot happen.
Why it is hard to get PRT researched and built?
Private/government funds will never be available for mass/public transit
projects.
What business model is best?
This is communist!
$1 million per mile is too costly.
10 cents per mile to ride is too costly.
Instead of building a network, build one line.
Government transport agencies should be glad to donate rights of way.
People will never leave their cars.
You cannot take away our cars!
Your system is not a truck.
Haul cars, and charge too little.
"Light Rail is Bogus" upsets transport professionals.
Rename it.
Vehicle Issues
How heavy are empty ones?
Why use suspended ones?
They look good, but are they practical?
The chopped flat back is inefficient, ugly; change it.
They look futuristic, fake.
They look boring, bland; change it.
They need door handles to enter, exit and for emergencies.
Two-seat tandem types have better drag and mass, but people won't like them.
The seats look good, but are they practical?
Vehicles must hold lots of baggage.
How are vehicles controlled?
Voice control is too hard.
Vehicles for freight are needed.
Vehicles need top designers.
Vehicles must be bigger.
What if vehicle mass rises?
Safety Issues
Vehicles need many added safety features so people like them.
When the electricity fails, everyone will die horribly.
Track Issues
How big is the track?
Everyone must stop each time any gets off.
How weather proof is the system?
Snow makes it cost more.
How vandal proof is the system?
You must detail merge/de-merge issues.
It must be faster and better to compete with other transport vehicles.
Your MagLev is too slow!
Everyone knows they all travel at 300 MPH.
Pole Issues
How far apart are they?
That is too many!
What is the maximum spacing?
How tall are they?
For uneven land, they must be adjustable.
Why are they tapered?
Portal Issues
Why
don't you call your stops stations?
They need better access for the disabled.
Efficiency and Pollution
Issues
How energy efficient
is SkyTran?
How does SkyTran
benefit the environment?
Glossary
PRT = Personal Rapid Transit. Common name for small vehicles riding tracks
of many types.
pod = Small transport vehicle, holds two riders in tandem.
portal = Stop, shelter, station. These are small and low mass, like bus stop
shelters.
FAQ, FMO, FRO or ?
Due to the Internet, a list of common questions and answers about something
is now called an FAQ, or Frequently Asked Questions. Shorter, more efficient
terms include Often Asked Questions (OAQ), Questions and Answers (Q&A), or better yet,
Common Questions (CQ). But popular custom has enshrined the term FAQ, and
probably there is no longer any chance of escape. Pity.
This list is a bit different than a normal list of questions and answers,
because most people who write to us seem not to ask questions, but instead,
to raise one or more objections. Why this is so is not fully clear to us,
but clearly, these ideas strike some nerve in people, or in some types of
people, and they feel compelled to object. Maybe this should be called Frequently
Made Objections (FMO), Frequently Raised Objections (FRO), or
Commonly Made Accusations (CMA)? Turns out that SkyTran inventor, Doug
Malewicki prefers BrainFAQ because this section is not a bunch of one
line questions and one line answers like so many FAQ's - you have to study
hard and ponder the logical possibilities before it all begins to make total
sense. Work that brain!
Other FAQs:
Always try to gain as many viewpoints and perspectives on a problem as you
can. To aid you in this, see these PRT pages:
Professor Jerry Schneider's
Innovative
Transportation Technologies website:
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/
Professor Edward Anderson's
Taxi 2000 Corporate website:
http://www.taxi2000.com/pubs/faq38.htm
Get on board! Personal Rapid Transit:
http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/~prt.html
The Advanced Transit
Association (Doug Malewicki has been a board member):
http://www.advancedtransit.org/
The Monorail Society:
http://www.monorails.org/
Questions
General Issues
Q: No SkyTran system has been built so far. If it were any good, it would
already have been built. Your system will never happen.
If true, then all planning and design processes are suspect. All the
architects, engineers, companies, and other organizations that propose
various structures before they are built must be wasting their time.
This objection says nothing about the possibility of building a system
now, or in the future. SkyTran is a PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) system, and so has many problems
getting attention.
Q: Why it is so hard to get PRT researched and built?
PRT generally, and more so SkyTran, demands multiple, massive changes in
people's understanding, outlook, world view, and in transport culture,
before it can be accepted. Consider:
* Technology, instead of being late 19th century and familiar, is late 20th
century and new.
* Power, instead of being dirty petroleum engines, is clean electricity.
* Hardware, instead of being big and massive, is lean and lightweight.
* Scale, instead of being massive, is personal.
* Sound, instead of being loud, is nearly silent.
* Schedules, instead of being fixed, are random on-demand.
* Departures, instead of being driven by organization needs, are set by
user needs.
* Routing, instead of being one line/route, is networked many routes.
* Routes, instead of being down on the ground, are up in the sky, on poles.
* Vehicles, instead of sitting atop routes, hang below them.
* Vehicle seating, instead of holding 4, 6, 50, or 200, holds only 2.
* Vehicle seats, instead of being side-by-side, are tandem in-line.
* Vehicle safety, instead of being weak and low, is strong and high.
* Vehicle speed, instead of being near 50 mph, is 100 mph or more.
* Vehicle motors, instead of being inside and low, are outside and above.
* Vehicle control, instead of being by people by hand, is by computers
automatic.
* Cost per mile, instead of being $10s of millions, is only $1 million.
* Funding and building, instead of being by government, can be private.
* Construction, instead of being decades or years, can be months or weeks or
days.
* Operating costs, instead of being permanent subsidies, can be profitable.
* Organizations, instead of being big bureaucracies, can be tiny teams.
* Budgets, instead of being huge, are tiny.
Part of the problem is that many PRT systems cost too much and deliver too
little. Many only move at 35 mph or so, slower than cars and don't deserve
to be called RAPID. People are
unwilling and unlikely to accept less than they have now, via cars. If you
want people to make a change, never ask them to give up what they already
have. Seduce them. Always give them more, for less money. Then they will
change gladly.
And, strong interests back extant systems. One view:
The Gatekeepers: Interests standing in the way of PRT implementation:
http://kinetic.seattle.wa.us/nxtlevel/prt/gatekeepers.html
Q: Seeking private/government funds is a waste of time. Such funds will
never be available for mass/public transit projects.
Some people think SkyTran seeks only private funds. Some people think
SkyTran seeks only government funds. No. We are funding source agnostic.
SkyTran was originally planned as a private venture. But no serious
investors paid up, so we must be realistic and accept funds from any source.
In the current political climate, government funding may be less likely than
private. Time will tell.
SkyTran is not mass transit. It is personal, like a car. It is not
necessarily public, or private. It can be either, or both, set by how it is
funded, by who pays. Four ownership/use combinations exist, all with
models/precedents. All usually occur to widely used technologies.
1) Private owner, public use. Models: most taxi cabs, US intercity bus
firms (Greyhound), vans for disabled.
2) Private owner, private use. Models: cars, or shuttle vans for employees
of some firms.
3) Public owner, public use. Models: most city busses and trams in the US
and Europe.
4) Public owner, private use. Models: vehicles for many politicians, such
as shuttles for US congressmen. This is the least common combination.
Q: So what kind of business model do you use? What is best?
We are not a business.
This is a basic implementation and business issue. A few basic models
exist. They are mutually supportive, not exclusive, as they involve some
different skills. They can be combined in many ways. Much room exists for
many models. All can work, though some are better than others.
Product models:
Manufacturing systems, and/or subsystems (parts, components), and
selling them to wholesalers, installers, or owners.
Service models:
Installing/building systems for operators, other services, owners.
Operating systems as transport utilities for users.
Q: This is a communist idea. It is egalitarian: the poor can travel as fast
as the rich.
Are cars, busses, trains, airplanes, or ships communist? What makes
something communist, or not, is ownership: who owns it. Communist means
state (government, community) owned. Socialist means worker owned.
Capitalist means privately owned. Technologies are not inherently any of
these, and can be any or all of them; see above two sections. Some vehicles
are inherently communal: busses, trains, big aircraft, ships. Some are less
so: bicycles, motorcycles, cars, small aircraft and boats. Yet, Greyhound
Bus, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., are not communist organizations.
Most transport is egalitarian in many ways. With cars, poor (1974 Buick)
and rich (new Porsche) all move at the same speed limits. No one is faster,
though some vehicles are inherently so. In aircraft and ships, poor (3rd
class) and rich (1st class) move at exactly equal rates. In aircraft,
technically, 1st class arrives first, by 1/5 second or so. In ships, if one
sinks, the rich drown last.
Q: SkyTran costs $1 million per mile. That is too much. It is so expensive
that no one will ever be able to afford to build anything but a tiny line.
You will never get anywhere.
A main goal of SkyTran is low cost transport to help people, especially
those with less. SkyTran is one of the lowest cost systems. Some variants
might cost even less than $1 million/mile.
Many systems costing far more are built every day. Roads and light rail are
not cheap. They only seem cheap because many are already in place, and they
are subsidized and built with money from taxes of several types: income,
property, sales. Some normal costs per mile:
City freeways: $40 million to $60 million per mile
City light rail: $35 million to $50 million per mile
City streets: $5 million to $10 million per mile
Subdivision roads: $2 million to $4 million per mile
Many proposed PRT systems: $4 million to $10 million per mile
If a thing costs $1 million/mile, you can afford 10 times more than if it
costs $10 million/mile. If it costs $4 million/mile, you can afford only 1/4
as much as if it costs $1 million/mile. Think.
Q: SkyTran costs 10 cents per mile to ride. That is too much. It is so
expensive that no one will ever be able to afford to ride. You will never
get anywhere.
Most people in the US pay thousands of dollars per year to have a car and
use it. A year of travel by SkyTran can cost 5 to 10 times less. City
bus and light rail systems are typically charging 25 to 35 cents per
mile.
Q: Instead of building a full network, build one track between two popular
points, maybe many miles apart so the speed is a bigger advantage.
This is ad hoc, incremental routing. We have considered this and would be
happy to do it. Very interesting are lines from airports to downtowns, or
between nearby shopping centers.
Q: Any government transport agency (Transit Authority, DOT, Transport
Ministry) should be glad to donate the right of way on large highways or
other roads.
That would be nice. Unfortunately, often, political and turf considerations
exist. Some administrators don't want efficient transport. It might cost
them power because they oversee large road building projects, and things
that are fast to build have little, or negative, appeal to them.
Small, lightweight, elevated systems need permissions, and/or easements,
but no full, dedicated, separate right of way on the ground. The ground and
much space under it can be used for many other purposes. Road easements are
useful, but not needed. Light elevated transport can use sidewalks, or even
backyards, with no problem. SkyTran runs 30 feet up, almost silently, with
no local emissions or pollution.
Q: People will never leave their cars, or leave them at home. Stop trying to
change that behavior. Rather, find a way to use it to your advantage.
For most people, leaving their cars is not an option, or issue. They have no
cars and never will. On Earth, there are now about 6.2 billion people, and 1
billion cars. Clearly, 5 of 6 people have no cars to leave. These people
have a right to swift, affordable transport. This is a vast business
opportunity. It is puzzling that car makers prefer to serve the travel needs
of a few million customers per year, instead of billions.
People wealthy enough to have cars, the richest 1/6 of humanity, have
proven many times that they will leave cars whenever, as soon as, something
faster and more convenient is available. When needed, people leave their
cars all of the time, readily and with little hesitation. Consider longer
trips, when people clearly prefer aircraft. Speed is a seductive convenience
and freedom. We seduce users with speed, freedom, luxury, comfort, and low
prices. Go fast, take a nap, listen to music, read, relax, in a 100 mph
mini-spa.
Cars are not a religion, merely a costly convenience. But cars grow less
convenient as traffic density rises. It is hard to imagine anyone sensible
who would rather sit in traffic jams for one to two hours a day, instead of
zipping to work in 10 minutes in luxuriously smooth silence in a pod.
SkyTran is based on not changing human behavior, or more precisely, on
unchanging aspects of human behavior. Many general human behaviors,
statistically, are very constant and reliable. Most people, most of the
time, like and seek speed, convenience, and economy. As one proof, in
industrialized lands, consider all the bland, tasteless foods people buy and
eat because they are fast and convenient. We would never try to change human
behavior. We are inventors and engineers, not miracle workers.
Q: You are trying to eliminate, replace, or take away our cars. You can't do
it. TV didn't eliminate radio, email didn't eliminate physical mail.
No. SkyTran does not attempt or want to eliminate any class of vehicle. It
merely gives people more freedom, new, more efficient, faster, safer,
cheaper options, which they are always free to accept or reject. Its all
about freedom and productivity. New options, new abilities, much lower
costs. Mobility is a type of freedom, a very important, primary one. SkyTran
wants to raise everyone's mobility, and thus freedom, by a factor of three
to six. This is as big a jump over cars as cars were over horses.
If someone uses SkyTran and decides to sell, or keep, their car, or cars,
or buy more cars with all of the money they save by using SkyTran, then
fine. It is between them and their family, parking lot/garage attendant, gas
station, car wash, auto parts store, mechanic(s), insurance company, auto
dealer, credit bureau, Department of Transportation, local police
department, Parking Checker/Enforcement, State Patrol, etc. It is none of
our business what people do with their cars. We don't care. If someone would
rather commute for $4,000/year by car, instead of $500/year by SkyTran, that
is their choice.
Cars offer a few freedoms (mobility, privacy), but have huge costs and
limit many freedoms in many ways (financial, city and home design, and see
prior paragraph). Many people in developed lands cannot even see such costs
or limits, because they are so familiar, and cars so powerfully dominate and
shape their environment. Late 20th century US cities are government of cars,
by cars, for cars. Many people think cars are worth it. Some people view
cars as bondage. Both kinds of people can ride SkyTran and save time and
money. Let freedom win.
Cars didn't eliminate horses, and buggies. Aircraft didn't eliminate
passenger ships. Jet aircraft didn't eliminate piston aircraft. Steam
powered ships didn't eliminate sailing ships. Diesel powered ships didn't
eliminate steam ships. Radio didn't eliminate newspapers. Telephones didn't
eliminate physical mail. Writing on paper didn't eliminate writing on stone
tablets. Internet bookstores didn't eliminate physical bookstores.
But, in all of these cases, and many more, newer technologies brought new
abilities which changed the role of the older technologies. Horses are no
longer the premier means of land travel, though many people lovingly keep,
and ride, them often. Passenger ships are no longer the premier means to
cross oceans, but millions of people cruise for pleasure yearly. Newspapers
are no longer the premier medium for breaking news, a role taken by radio in
the 1930s. Radio is no longer the premier medium for breaking news, but is
now used far more for music. Physical mail is no longer the premier medium
for time-critical remote communications, a role taken by telephones in the
1960s. Stone tablets are no longer the premier medium for records, a role
taken by paper some 2,500 years ago; tablets are emplaced in statues,
building cornerstones, and graveyards every day.
Some objections to new things are odd. This type is one of them. The
SkyTran website tries to make it clear that it is optimized for routine
travel such as commuting. Nowhere on the website does it state any desire to
eliminate cars.
Q: I can't use SkyTran. I need a truck to haul heavy loads.
This is a separate issue. You can't use a tiny car to move heavy loads
either, so you don't use one. Probably you own, have, or otherwise use a
truck. You have made your decision. It is the right one. You are doing the
best thing for your needs. Keep up the good work. SkyTran is not a truck. In
the past we needed trucks, we need them today, and even if SkyTran grows
very common, we will still need trucks.
When SkyTran is fully implemented in a city, you will find the
roads below are no longer congested. You will be able to drive your
pickup loaded with your essential tools back and forth to your worksites
considerably quicker and in a more relaxed, less frustrating manner.
Parcel pods will be useful for hauling and routing some types of easily
divided, smaller loads, such as parcels for the US Postal Service (USPS),
United Parcel Service (UPS), Federal Express (FedEx), etc. which will
further reduce congestion on the roads below.
Q: You should change your design to haul automobiles
and up the charge to 35 cents a mile. This is
still cheaper than driving yourself, a lot faster, much safer, no chance of
a speeding ticket, and you can sleep.
Were it only so easy. A 35 cent per mile fee is too little given all of the
higher costs of a larger system; high speeds use much power. At 100 mph, 85%
of the power being consumed fights aerodynamic drag. SkyTran as is only uses about $0.01 of power per mile.
Something as large as a car and as poorly streamlined could consume 10 times more power!
If you care about reducing pollution (at the power plant) and conserving
energy this not a good idea, especially when you realize that most commuters
are traveling solo. Worse, you would now have to safely support the
3,500 pound weight of the automobile PLUS the weight of the carrier.
Means the track would have to be 10 to 15 times stiffer. This in turn
means that both the track and the support columns become much larger, more
visually intrusive structures and, of course, much more expensive.
Ooops! You couldn't very well legally exclude the Ford
Expedition owners (7,000 lbs) and other large SUV's, so in reality you would
have to build a 30 time stiffer guideway = $$$. Poof - no longer can
you afford to put SkyTran everywhere in a city.
Vehicle Issues
Q: What is the mass of an empty pod?
Empty pods total about 200 pounds: 75 pounds, 30 kg, without in-track (above
the visible pod) parts: magnetic suspension, linear motor electric
propulsion, 6 G emergency mechanical brake, and related structure, which
adds 120-130 pounds. Pods use $0.01 electricity per mile. Low mass is vital.
Q: Why base a system on vehicles suspended from, rather than sitting on,
tracks?
Suspending vehicles from tracks has many pivotal advantages over mounting
vehicles atop tracks, wrong side up. This is a key trait, and design
strategy, for many reasons.
It allows narrower tracks, which have many benefits.
1) Lower vehicle and track mass and cost.
2) Shorter, faster, lower energy and cost switching, via narrower track
engaging vehicle subsystems: suspension, propulsion. This allows shorter
switch lengths (parallel track transition lengths), for changing tracks, to
offline (loading) sections, other routes, etc. Narrower tracks shorten and
speed switching. Wider tracks lengthen and slow switching. SkyTran
suspension is MagLev. Unlike some MagLev layouts, vehicles need not grip
around the outsides of tracks, or sit fully between two tracks.
3) Faster, easier construction and siting, via traits 1, 2.
4) Air motion, airflow, around vehicle and track is freer, less
restricted, with less interference, and thus air drag and noise at high
speed, for motion efficiency, less pollution and cost, more safety.
5) Less contamination, which lowers maintenance, raises safety.
6) Suspended vehicles have lower centers of gravity, for more stable
vehicle mounting, smoother ride in winds, more safety.
7) More safety, via traits 5, 6; and narrower track is harder for anything
to walk on. Vehicles suspended under tracks can't hit things atop tracks.
8) Vehicles can easily swing side to side, via damped, hinged, swinging
connectors, for better load distribution on the track (lower cost), far more
comfort in turns (no side forces to fight), and some ability to adjust to
high side winds. Vehicles will bank like motorcycles or aircraft,
automatically, with no need for any costly, fussy controls, electronics,
actuators. Example: in a 1/2 g turn, riders feel only 12% heavier for a
second or two.
Q: The vehicles look far more attractive than some of the box-like designs
of other PRT vehicles, but are these more practical for everyday use?
Yes, in many ways. Why not? That is all that matters. Looks are almost
irrelevant. What matters is system efficiency: fast, safe user/miles per
Dollar-Euro-Pound. We are glad it looks nice, but the looks are accidental,
merely a byproduct of long, careful aerodynamic, structural, and operations
analysis. Form follows function. Vehicle shape is based only on efficiency,
to lower air drag, for a given user volume. Low air drag is vital for high
speed, quiet, low cost-energy-pollution operation. At 100 mph (160 kph), 3/4
of the power goes to fight air drag. Curved forms/shapes/surfaces are
stronger and safer per unit mass, shed dirt and precipitation more, stay
cleaner longer, and are easier to clean by automatic fans (blowers) and
sprays. Clean aerodynamics greatly lowers exterior cleaning needs.
Boxy, rectilinear forms are inherently inferior in many ways: they have
far poorer aerodynamics, more drag, less structural strength and so must
weigh more to hold a given load, are less safe, more vulnerable to impact
damage from birds, etc., get dirtier, need longer, more involved cleaning.
Q: For vehicles, a chopped flat back is inefficient and/or ugly. The back
should be curved, or tapered to a point.
Air can't efficiently follow a back end curve of more than a certain angle.
Decades ago, race car designers learned that you get less drag if you bring
the shape in at some maximum angle set by operational Reynolds's number, and
then rather than continuing far back to a fine point, you can just cut it
off. This is because any extra wetted surface area aft of the cut plane adds
more drag through air molecules sort of sticking to all that extra area,
called boundary layer drag, than a simple hard turn transition to
turbulence. This is called the Kamm effect after the researcher who
discovered the tradeoff.
The current pod design has a very low drag coefficient. When money is
available, wind tunnel testing can optimize the shape for minimum drag at
100 and 150 mph. This will pay for itself many times over in operational
energy savings.
Many cars have curvy back ends. This is bad aerodynamics, and is done
because people consider various styling effects more important than economy
and less pollution. They buy based on pure visual appeal instead of
using knowledge of physics or logic.
Q: The vehicles look too futuristic and fake.
So far, there has been no effort to make pods look any way at all, except by
color a bit. The basic science behind the shape was well established by
1930, when it was called streamlining, though refinements have occurred
since then. Thus the shape is not futuristic, it is old. If it seems
futuristic, it is only because much current vehicle aerodynamics is so
crude, primitive, retarded, and behind 1920s science. It is sad that, in the
early 21st century, vehicle design has still not caught up fully with the
1920s.
Q: The vehicles look boring and bland. They need more exciting colors and
patterns, and more variety.
Many people have objected, and more will, to overhead transport systems,
including SkyTran, on aesthetic grounds, accusing them of being ugly, visual
pollution. So, a main goal is to blend into the background to be maximally
invisible (camouflage), so people do not notice them much. Louder, and some
darker, colors make this harder, and will likely cause problems with public
acceptance.
Thermal considerations also exist. Darker colors are thermally (radiatively)
promiscuous, they absorb and emit heat more, raising heating and cooling
needs. Lighter colors reflect more and emit heat less, lowering heating and
cooling needs. Such needs effect energy use.
Variety is never free. There is always an information and time cost,
at least. In economies, it costs money. In manufacturing, generally, each
time production volume doubles, cost drops 10%-20%. With 30 to 10 different
colors or schemes, coloring costs double. People tolerate this with cars
because most people consider color more important than safety or finances,
and know nothing of production economics. They buy based on
visual appeal instead of using logic.
Q: Vehicles need inner and outer door handles. How else can users enter and
exit? What about when the power goes off, or other emergencies?
In normal use, user operated doors and latches are unneeded. Doors open
automatically just before vehicles move in for boarding. It would cost a few
seconds for a user to grip a handle, squeeze it, and lift a lightweight door
out of the way. Same for closing. Instead, users should spend their seconds
belting in, while the vehicle concurrently closes the door, and starts
moving out of the way for the next user. Ingress and egress time is critical
to capacity per hour on the whole system, more so in high demand conditions
in time and place.
Emergencies should be rare. Redundant systems are common practice in good
engineering. SkyTran can have redundant power supplies: microturbines, fuel
cells, flywheels, batteries, ultracapacitors, or other, in portals, poles,
along tracks, or in vehicles. If power fails, vehicles can continue to their
destination, or for at least many miles before stopping at a portal.
Vehicles have no internal handles for latches, because some users (teen
males, drunk, disoriented, panicked) would try to open doors when vehicles
are in unsafe positions for boarding, or even cruising at speed. This is
unsafe, and high risk lawsuit exposure. Design for abuse.
For very unusual emergencies, doors have an external, tiny, keyhole latch,
easily accessible from outside, operable via a suitable tool/key, flush with
no projections to snag branches, debris, etc. This raises safety. If
vehicles stall, hanging 30 feet above ground, it is safer to make users wait
until rescue personnel and equipment are present, so no one falls and gets
hurt or killed. Safely trapped stranded (irritated) users are better than
falling injured (more irritated) or dead users.
Q: Two-seat tandem (in-line) vehicles have clear advantages in drag and
mass, but may be less appealing to potential users used to car interior
layouts. There is a need for detailed research on this, or maybe borrow any
already done by auto makers assessing the viability of some of their concept
designs.
Narrow vehicles and tandem seats have many pivotal advantages over wide
vehicles and side-by-side seats. These are key traits, and design
strategies, for many reasons.
Precedents:
In use, the average US car carries about 1.15 users (Europe 1.3-1.4?), so
on most trips, most users have no need for even one seat next to them; it is
empty. Also, some US laws require children under given ages to sit in the
back seats of cars, further lowering needs for side-by-side seats.
Many vehicles have tandem seats: motorcycles, scooters, bicycles, some air
and light water craft. Most or all users of such vehicles have no problems
adapting, and some even prefer it. In markets for most such vehicles, little
or no demand exists for side-by-side seats: users do not refuse to buy
vehicles due to seats being tandem, and not side-by-side.
Reasons:
Small, narrow, aerodynamic vehicles create far less need to sit next to
others via their speed, acoustic traits, design, size and form.
Speed: Slow, multi-stop travel raises the need to sit next to others. High
speed, non-stop, point-to-point travel can cut trip times by factors of 3 to
6 or more. Users will spend far less time confined in vehicles, lowering any
need to sit next to others.
Acoustic traits: Pods will be luxuriously quiet inside. Conversation will
be easier in even a low cost pod than in today's most costly, best (noisy)
luxury cars, for three reasons: design, size, form.
Design: Clean aerodynamics, low drag, minimizes wind noise. Pods have no
moving or noise making parts, except a climate control system fan, which
runs only when pods are still or empty, and an air conditioner compressor,
which runs only on hot days.
Size: Small, compact vehicles direct and conserve inside sound.
Form: Curved inner surfaces direct and conserve inner sound.
Tandem seats allow narrower vehicles, tracks, portals, installations,
right-of-way flexibility, facilitate having one door per vehicle (all of
which lowers costs), and all side views are unobstructed, symmetrically, and
so better than with side-by-side seats. Narrow vehicles are safer via less
collision probability. With side-by-side seats, suspended pods with one
rider would tilt awkwardly to one side.
Little or no research is needed. Low cost, fast, quiet travel will be a
strong motive to overlook any unusual seating. The more needless,
unproductive a priori research requirements and obstacles are placed in the
way of something, the less likely it will be done/built. This is sometimes
termed analysis paralysis. At times, a priori research costs more than
building and testing devices.
Q: Vehicle seats look attractive, but do not look user friendly for people
with mobility problems, who cannot climb into/out of low seats. Serious
thought must be given to seats in the context of an aging population and
heavy use of public transport by the aged. A rotating and rising/lowering
seat system may be needed, similar to those put in vehicles converted for
disabled access.
Much thought has been spent on this by SkyTran. Accessibility is a key goal,
trait, and design strategy. Many team members have aging parents, and infirm
relatives. We are glad it looks nice, but the looks are accidental, merely a
byproduct of long, careful ergonomic and operations analysis. No one need
worry about low seat height. In vehicles, seat height is mostly irrelevant.
What matters is seat height when/as users enter (boarding) and exit. If
boarding area floors (in portals) are well below vehicle seat height (about
20 inches, 1/2 m), then vehicle seats will not be low for users in portals;
users need never climb into or out of low seats. The effect will be, and
feel, a bit higher than living room chairs. People will be able to sit on
vehicle seats easily, and then gently pivot their body and legs in and out
easily and quickly, as when sitting and pivoting into a tall car with big
doors. Try testing this idea and geometry out for yourself on your chair or
couch right
now, as you read this.
SkyTran will be wonderful for our precious seniors; they will love it. It
will be far smoother, quieter, more luxurious, safer, and less nerve-racking
than any extant transport system, even Rolls Royce cars. Most current
transport is shameful in its treatment of seniors, and the infirm. Consider
busses: after a lifetime of work, why should seniors, or the infirm, be
forced to risk and endure standing, weaving, and wobbling down a narrow
aisle, tripping over other rider's feet and bags, as a huge vehicle
hazardously accelerates, swerves, lurches, careens, bounces, turns, heaves,
leans, and brakes? SkyTran users need never fear such indignities. Many
assistance options are possible. They can be researched more if funding
arises.
Q: Vehicles must accommodate use by moms with children, especially with
buggies, and the use of shopping carts (trolleys). Luggage space adequate
for users carrying items at least to air travel weight limits must be
provided.
A standard vehicle (pod) front or back seat area can hold much baggage
easily, and more if seat bottoms can fold up. A 300 pound, 140 kg, user can
have up to 200 pounds of luggage.
Most users, for most trips, carry nowhere near so much mass with them.
SkyTran does not solve all transport problems, merely most of them, for most
trips, for most users, most of the time.
Users with big loads need more capacity, via using extra pods, or more
suitable and spacious vehicles: longer pods, or ground vehicles such as
vans. The main limit on pod load is mass (about 500 lbs, 230 kg), not
volume. It is easy to make longer pods that can hold bulky, lower density
loads, such as a mother, some children, buggies or strollers, and groceries.
Load time for such users will be high, and may need to be done in special
needs portals, detailed in Portal Issues.
Q: How are vehicles controlled?
Verbally, by voice. Voice control is far easier to use for most user groups:
ones not knowing an area (strangers, tourists, new residents), ones with
poor map skills or sense of direction, tired ones, ones holding loads,
parents with children, older persons with arthritis, the sight impaired.
Microphones and speakers cost far less, are far smaller and more rugged,
and can be placed higher, than graphic displays, which must be placed lower
to be used easily. Lower placement makes anything more vulnerable, and
easier to vandalize, pour soda or beer on, urinate or vomit on, etc. Design
for abuse.
Speaking and hearing impaired users use handheld vehicle interfaces with
acoustic, infrared (IR), or radio communication means.
Q: Controlling vehicles with no buttons, all verbally is too hard. Besides,
navigating is mainly a graphic activity that doesn't always translate easily
into voice commands.
No. Most users, most of the time, don't need graphics as much as voice. When
you get in a taxi with a knowledgeable, trained driver, you never need a
map. You do not navigate; the driver does. You give only a coordinate or
label: a name, address, or intersection, and you are on you way. You say
things like: "Take me to LAX" (Los Angeles International airport), or "...
Disneyland," or "... the SuperMart grocery store near my home," or "...
Joe's Grocery," or "... my brother's apartment" (if such data is stored for
you), or "... 1234 East Washington Road", or "... the intersection of 4th
and Cherry Street," etc.
Graphic displays are not an option. Even 25 years into the so-called
computer revolution, in a nation as advanced as the US, 50% of the
population is still almost totally computer illiterate and unable to use any
but the simplest computerized controls. Think: How skilled is your
Grandmother with big maps and/or digital graphic displays? How well does she
manage her video cassette recorder (VCR) or microwave oven? Do not expect or
force users to learn new skills to use a transport system.
Q: The website refers to other pod types to hold freight/disabled, etc. More
thought may need to be given such, especially aircraft freight containers;
are they too big to include? System design needs to be able to address such
inter-operability issues.
We have spent much thought on these issues, and have made good progress
given our meager resources. More work needs time and money.
SkyTran's first goal is to move people, then freight. SkyTran is a lean,
lightweight system, with a maximum loaded vehicle mass, with 2 users, of
about 700 lbs, 300 kg. The main point, or essence, is to divide and conquer
transport problems.
In standard, early systems, no provision is made for aircraft freight
containers, or interoperation with other freight systems. This can come
later, within pod mass limits, as events warrant. Most items people get at
stores, or have delivered to homes and businesses, are small enough to fit
in pods easily. Bigger items can go in trucks. If SkyTran is enlarged, many
of its economies vanish, and mass and costs explode.
Q: Pod design needs the attention of top car or small aircraft interior
designers to balance weight/drag/ease of use and comfort concerns. Designs
seem to be only at the concept stage at present. Is this true?
Most needed interior and seating design work was done decades ago by
designers at aircraft makers. Top designers are no longer needed.
Pod design is well beyond the concept stage. Calculations exist, and a
crude seating model was built and tested by Doug Malewicki, who has
extensive engineering experience in the US aerospace industry, including
work in general aviation for 2 years at Cessna Aircraft, and 3 years on the
B-2 Spirit stealth bomber program.
Top vehicle interior designers cost top money. Build a simple system
first. Then, refine it over time, if and as needed. Don't pile a priori
requirements up front or it will not get done.
Q: Vehicles should be bigger, holding 3, 4, 6, 8, or more people, or maybe
with pods that hold cars/vans up to some size/mass.
Many people make this suggestion. Most of them seem to think that somehow,
raising the system mass has no cost, as if the carefully engineered fee of
$0.10/mile is some sort of physical constant.
If you raise the mass of the system, and most subsystems, by about an order
of magnitude over SkyTran, this raises the cost of all related systems by
similar amounts, though somewhat smaller due to scaling laws. The resulting
system is no longer SkyTran, but instead, is like many other monorail
systems:
Open Directory:
http://dmoz.org/Science/Technology/Transportation/Monorails/
Same material at Google:
http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Technology/Transportation/Monorails/
Monorail Society:
http://www.monorails.org/
The mass of an SUV with family can reach 6,000 pounds. This would need a
MagLev carrier of some 1,500 pounds, for a total mass of some 7,500 pounds.
Some intermode monorail systems are suggested that use special purpose cars.
ATN: Automated Transportation Network:
http://www.woppit.com/atn/
Monomobile: Electric Rail Car:
http://w3.iac.net/~ard/
RUF: Rapid Urban Flexible: Dual Mode Transport System:
http://www.ruf.dk/
If you strongly believe that vehicles must be bigger than SkyTran's, then
clearly your interests are not in SkyTran, but in larger systems. Why not
direct you attentions there?
Q: What are the effects of raising vehicle mass and/or design speed, say to
hold four users, or freight vehicles?
Why 4, or 3, 6, 8 or more? What is our purpose? To meet some theoretical,
formal, unrealistic (unintentionally imaginary, nonsensical), unproductive,
a priori requirements? Or, to move users at high speed and safety, luxurious
comfort, and low cost and environmental effect?
Many people have this same problem of not understanding SkyTran's main point
or essence, which is to divide and conquer transport problems, similar in
many ways to packet switching computer networks, such as the Internet, that
chop everything into packets and then send them flexibly as needed, even via
varied routes. SkyTran is a lean, lightweight system.
In use, the average US car carries about 1.15 users (Europe 1.3-1.4?), but
has a capacity of 5.6 users. Why? Because cars are on-demand, random
schedule, random route vehicles and transport.
The first SkyTran pods held one user. Then they were enlarged to hold two.
Technically, in theory, this doubles the capacity of any system. In
practice, it raises the capacity of a real, built system by only about 15%
in the US; about 30-40% in Europe. Why? Because SkyTran is on-demand, random
schedule, random route transport.
In theory, 4 user pods again doubles capacity. In practice, it raises the
capacity of a real, on-demand system by nothing, in the US or Europe. The
only way raising seating capacity can raise system capacity is if vehicles
are not on-demand, but run on a set schedule, destroying the main advantage
of on-demand systems; a major SkyTran benefit. Raising seating capacity
makes costs explode, destroying many economies, and for what? It would only
reproduce, automate, accelerate, and speed up the waste already present on
the world's roadways. This is folly.
This is not a technology issue, but a matter of how real users use real
vehicles in real life. Very few users need or want to go exactly where other
users are going, when they are going there. Users want to go where and when
they wish or need to. Automobile usage patterns are a clear, gigantic,
long-term, multi-decade, unarguable, incontrovertible existence proof of
this behavior. As much as engineers, transport planners, environmentalists,
or anyone else may wish for more sensible, rational users, our opinions are
irrelevant and useless. Users are as they are. We must accept this, or live
in denial, or worse, in a fantasy world, and see our solutions ignored by
users. This happens a lot. Pragmatism wins. Idealism looses. SkyTran is
about being pragmatic.
Pole Issues
Q: How far apart are the vertical structural
support poles?
Normal spacing is cost optimized at about 30 feet. With current technology
and methods, anything more or less costs more, and is not done unless local
obstacles demand it.
Q: That is too many poles. It will cost too much.
Poles are standard, ordinary, mass produced, tapered street light poles,
average 1 foot diameter: thicker at bottom, narrower at top. They are not
costly.
Q: What is the estimated maximum spacing between poles?
Maximum spacing is set by cost, and size of obstacles to cross. Wider
spacing needs bigger poles and thicker track. One can build big suspension
bridges with 1 mile spacing, but it would cost a lot, though considerably less
for light weight SkyTran vehicles than for
much heavier cars, trucks, trains.
Q: How tall are poles?
About 30 feet, 9 meters.
Q: For uneven terrain, you need adjustable poles, how else can you cope?
Adjustable poles are unneeded in a built system, and would needlessly raise
costs and slow production, and maybe construction. For pole height
variation, buy a few different sizes, use the nearest match, remove (cut
off) what is not needed/used when installing, return leftover waste material
to recycler.
Q: Why use poles shaped as they are, tapered?
The best design strategy is no variation in pole cross section except for a
gentle taper. This gives minimum material and costs for optimized strength,
stiffness, and resistance to weather (wind, precipitation) and climbing.
Avoid stepped poles because they give people, vandals, and wild animals
climbing hand/footholds and interim goals (motive, reward) before the pole
top.
Portal Issues
Q: Why don't you call your stops stations?
Words often have many meanings, connotations, associations, or essences. The
word 'station' has many negative connotations of being large, heavy,
massive, costly, permanent, immobile, inflexible, real estate, built of
masonry and concrete over the course of a year, with one or two smelly
bathrooms, being a room where users must sit or stand around and wait for
long times, sometimes avoiding occasional loitering unsavory characters.
SkyTran has no stations in this sense, never. SkyTran team members are
opposed to using 'station' for SkyTran, though we sometimes use it by
accident. On the website, if there are instances where the word station is
used, they will be replaced in time.
The word 'portal' has no negative connotations, and has a positive essence
of being a port or entry point to something larger. SkyTran team leader
Malewicki prefers 'portal'.
The words 'stop' or 'shelter' have many positive connotations of being
small, low mass, unobtrusive, impermanent, flexible, like a big cabinet,
fast to install and uninstall, like bus stop shelters. SkyTran team member
Fass prefers 'stop'.
SkyTran is a lean, lightweight, on-demand system, with zero wait time. No
need to wait will occur, except in unusual conditions, when problems occur.
Q: The advantages of mounting portals on track support poles are clear, but
they must have access by means other than stairs, which prevent use of the
system by wheelchair users, moms with buggies, etc. Portals can include a
lift activated by user Smartcards, and must address vandalism/security
issues in detail.
If one adds elevators (lifts), or similar systems, to each portal, costs
explode. Normal SkyTran portals are $5,000 for each end, $10,000 total (2
ends), installed. For a given budget, instead of one portal every 3 blocks
(1/4 mile), with elevators you might get one every 6 blocks (1/2 mile).
SkyTran team member Fass gave this issue much thought and has a simple, low
cost/technology elevator (lift) design.
SkyTran avoids complexity wherever possible. Part of its rationale and
philosophy is to meet local and regional travel needs of most (97% now, 94%
in future) potential users with very low cost ($0.10/mile) fast transport,
and then use the savings to better meet the special needs of the other 3%
(6% future), via more helpful and suitable vehicles and services:
door-to-door ground vehicles, vans, with wheel chair lifts, etc.
For short trips, 3-5 miles, use vans only, to carry special needs users
door-to-door. For longer trips, use a mixed two mode system of vans and
pods. Vans get users and carry them to special needs portals, with elevators
(lifts) to pods, or pods at surface level so no elevator is needed, where
space allows. To aid special needs users, van drivers can aid them, or
portals can have an assistant, human now, robotic in future. Users transfer
to special pods, which zip to the special needs portal nearest the
destination, where users transfer to another van to finish the trip.
The huge benefit to disabled users is that travel need not be such a long,
tedious, laborious struggle. They no more need struggle to get to a bus
station or stop, and then struggle aboard and get situated, and then
struggle again to get off, and then struggle from another stop to their
destination, and then repeat this ordeal on the return trip. SkyTran can
give door-to-door transport, faster than anything the disabled have ever
experienced, at lower cost. Their travel efficiency and productivity can
explode.
For cost and operations efficiency, special needs portal density must
match, be tuned to and optimized for, local needs density. Areas with a
population density of average US city neighborhoods need one special needs
portal per 20-30 square miles. Areas of higher population density, or with
more old or infirm people, need higher portal density. Areas of lower
population density, or with more (a higher fraction of) young and/or
healthier people, have lower portal density. As needs density changes over
time, portals are easy to move, add, or remove.
SkyTran systems are never fixed or immutable. They are always flexible and
ready to be changed quickly as needs evolve. It is so flexible, that one
doesn't need all the answers a priori. Build and improve. Design for change.
It is important to think about this with a good model. Consider children's
Tinkertoy or Erector construction sets, not giant, permanent, costly
edifices. Imagine a 4 mile transport spur is built on a right of way in a
city. Then conditions change over 10 or 20 years, and it would be more
useful if the route were moved 1/2 mile over, parallel to the original
route. If the spur is a freeway or elevated railroad, moving it will cost
$200-400 million minimum, not counting buying and demolishing many buildings
(forget it). Moving a 4 mile SkyTran route costs $1-2 million if one reuses
extant poles and track. Or, an all new parallel spur costs only $4 million.
In both cases, extant buildings are unaffected.
Always maximize transport per dollar, for able and disabled users. Do not
compromise. Omit no one from such calculations. For economics or
engineering, why buy one suboptimal system at four times the cost, when you
can buy two optimized systems at under twice the cost? It makes no sense to
quadruple the cost of a base system to meet the needs of only 3% to 6% of
possible users, when you can less than double the cost and buy two
use-optimized systems.
For vandalism, see Track Issues.
Smartcards are yesterday's solution. They need readers that use physical
contact between reader and card, which both need routine cleaning, and
slowly wear out. This raises maintenance costs. To use smartcard readers,
busy users must stop moving, dig cards out of pockets, wallets, or purses,
click or swipe them in a slot, and then put them back. This sort of wasted
motion and effort slows and degrades transport system efficiency.
More efficient are no-contact systems. They work via infrared (IR) or
radio, as do unpowered radio frequency identity (RFID) tags used on some freight,
or powered radio key fobs as many new cars have. Users simply walk past or
through a detector, and need not stop or think.
Q: The 'Kiddytrain' analogy to teach why "Light Rail
is Bogus" is terrific, but its prominence on the website
homepage may detract from SkyTran being paid serious attention by some
visitors from the transport professions. Renaming it as a 'Layman's Guide to
PRT' may be advantageous.
Maybe. SkyTran team member Fass is aware of this and has raised this issue.
Doug Malewicki must judge such matters.
The key question is: What maximizes long-term benefit? Transport
professionals pay little attention to lean, lightweight systems anyway, so
it may not matter. But those with more open minds may benefit, more so the
next generation. They may be more important.
If SkyTran is ever funded, one or more professional websites can be
crafted. In the meantime, our goal is to provoke thought, educate, and
entertain.
[continued in part 2]
to BrainFAQ
part 1 - part 2
|
|