[ale] Mass Transit Solutions?

Byron A Jeff byron at cc.gatech.edu
Tue Jun 20 12:56:56 EDT 2006


On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 11:11:45AM -0400, Charles Shapiro wrote:

> I personally myself think that mass transit offers far safer and simpler
> solutions to this problem. But of course gas has to get to $3.50 a gallon to
> convince the SUV drivers that they'll have to rub elbows with peasants.

I'll be tougher than that. Gas at $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon will simply move 
drivers out of the SUVs into more fuel efficient vehicles.

Mass transit doesn't generally work because of its inflexibility. Cars 
talk drivers to exactly where they want to go in the timeframe they
generally want to get there. Mass transit works well when you have a
fixed target (i.e. get to work for 9AM, stay at work all day, go directly
home). But it fails miserably when there's any deviation of that type of
schedule.

There is also the depersonalization issue you alluded to above. I just
spent 45 minutes today on an archeological dig down to the bottom of the 
trunk of my car. My car is MySpace (tm) and I am reluctant to separate myself
from it.

For mass transit to work in a wholesale fashion these among other issues,
such as flow management, will need to be addressed. 

I think that a hybrid system needs to evolve. Something along the lines
of having personal vehicles that can latch up into bigger chains for
better flow. Here's one scenario:

Vehicles become dual mode coupling traditional surface travel with some
type of track based travel system. So you can be an independant vehicle or
link up into an ad-hoc train. The trains would be automated along the track
(which may be dual rail, monorail, magnetic, or even surface with rubber
wheels) traveling automatically at high rates of speeds for long hauls. Then
near the destination, everyone decouples and drives off in their own direction.
You can also couple with larger mass transit cars that carry larger groups of
people.

So you get better flow due to coupling and automated travel in the long haul.
You also keep flexibility because your vehicle goes with you to the destination.
Personalization and privacy are also retained. 

One could also think of extensions where private items are locked up and the
car is rented to others during the course of the day. So if you need to run a
quick errand, you just grab any avilable local car and drive it to where you
need to go and return it when you're finished.

Car automation really isn't needed in urban settings. It's the long haul
links that can really can benefit from new technologies.

BAJ

> 
> -- CHS
> (Who might be a peasant himself)
> 
> On 6/20/06, James P. Kinney III <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> >On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 09:49 -0400, Charles Shapiro wrote:
> >> Uh, as a mostly pedestrian and bicyclist this scares me to death.
> >>
> >> It's dangerous enough out there with the drunks and the SUVs. Add
> >> trying to cross a street where a minor sensor failure can kill you
> >> into the mix and it'll become pretty much impossible to move around
> >> the city EXCEPT in an automobile.
> >>
> >> -- CHS
> >
> >So I guess the specs should include redundant sensors data. Each vehicle
> >has its own set at the data is shared between nearby vehicles.
> >
> >Of course an RFID on the bike makes it quite visible as well.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6/16/06, James P. Kinney III <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com> wrote:
> >>         So the big questions I have to pose is:
> >>
> >>         What can be done about it that is financially feasible,
> >>         politically
> >>         possible and technically available?
> >>
> >>         Of course I have some thoughts on this. :)
> >>
> >>         We already have an extensive network of asphalt. Neighborhood
> >>         associations have enough clout to kill off a rail line in the
> >>         areas
> >>         where it is needed (Why has the Tucker Marta spur never been
> >>         built?).
> >>         The Grand Darpa Challenge has demonstrated we currently posses
> >>         the
> >>         technical ability to auto-navigate a car through some of the
> >>         worst
> >>         terrain.
> >>
> >>         Is it feasible to have current cars retro-fitted with self-nav
> >>         as an
> >>         intermediate step to a purpose built light vehicle with
> >>         self-nav
> >>         designed in?
> >>
> >>         There are social issues with peoples current choice of cars
> >>         that can't
> >>         be addressed with technology (Why do so many little, tiny
> >>         women drive
> >>         gigantic 3 ton monsters like Chevy Suburbans north of I-20?).
> >>
> >>         My thinking on the self-nav is it could allow a smoother
> >>         traffic flow
> >>         process that would be safer and much more fuel efficient. Ad
> >>         60% of the
> >>         work done by the engine is to simply move the air out of the
> >>         way,
> >>         self-nav would allow cars to safely tail-gate literally
> >>         bumper-to-bumper
> >>         and thus greatly reduce wind drag on the entire mini-train.
> >>
> >>         A second factor in this (long range proposal) would be a super
> >>         light
> >>         weight, single commuter vehicle. Much of the mass of the
> >>         current vehicle
> >>         design is involve in the safety of the passengers. Let's face
> >>         it, cars
> >>         crash because drivers make mistakes. If the crash likelihood
> >>         is reduced
> >>         by removing as much of the human error as engineering
> >>         possible, the
> >>         overall mass of the car can be reduced dramatically with
> >>         tremendous
> >>         efficiency results. Likewise, the reduction in size increases
> >>         the number
> >>         of these vehicles that can be on the roads at any given time
> >>         (which
> >>         extends the useful lifetime of the existing road size and also
> >>         reduces
> >>         maintenance as the vehicles are lighter and thus don't produce
> >>         the wear
> >>         on the roadway that the heavier ones do.)
> >>
> >>         Of course, the nav systems would have to be fully open source
> >>         to ensure
> >>         that the travel details of any one person are not used
> >>         nefariously. In
> >>         fact, the entire traffic control system should be fully open
> >>         source to
> >>         engender an enhanced trust of the system by the population at
> >>         large.
> >>         Having a talking guvment head telling me "Of course it's safe
> >>         and
> >>         secure" is rather pointless. Having 40-50 research engineers
> >>         jointly say
> >>         it is means much more.
> >>
> >>         More?
> >>
> >>         On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 09:08 -0400, William Bagwell wrote:
> >>         > Catch up? The idiots should never have *abandoned* in the
> >>         50s what had
> >>         > existed in the 1930s! A bit before my time so I'm not
> >>         exactly sure when
> >>         > they were first built, but depression era trolley lines ran
> >>         as far as
> >>         > Marietta to the north and Stone Mountain to the east.
> >>         (Probably others
> >>         > too.) Cheap, simple rail trolleys that cost a nickel to
> >>         ride... Or so I
> >>         > have been told, I only remember the rotting stations as a
> >>         small child.
> >>         >
> >>         > Lingering bitterness over Atlanta killing the trolley, was a
> >>         primary reason
> >>         > why Cobb county rejected joining Marta when it was first
> >>         proposed back in
> >>         > the late 60s or early 70s.
> >>         --
> >>         James P. Kinney III          \Changing the mobile computing
> >>         world/
> >>         CEO & Director of Engineering \          one Linux
> >>         user         /
> >>         Local Net Solutions,LLC        \           at a
> >>         time.          /
> >>         770-493-8244                    \.___________________________./
> >>         http://www.localnetsolutions.com
> >>
> >>         GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S . Physics)
> >>         <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> >>         Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C
> >>         6CA7
> >>
> >>
> >>         -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>         Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >>
> >>         iD8DBQBEkrkEYZCtw4KcbKcRAgnrAKCQblcld7rbpKCSw/LumyZDt0fNCgCeL0tT
> >>         nQ3L/Rb9XTU1XtXbatppO18=
> >>         =4eAX
> >>         -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >>
> >>         _______________________________________________
> >>         Ale mailing list
> >>         Ale at ale.org
> >>         http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ale mailing list
> >> Ale at ale.org
> >> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >--
> >James P. Kinney III          \Changing the mobile computing world/
> >CEO & Director of Engineering \          one Linux user         /
> >Local Net Solutions,LLC        \           at a time.          /
> >770-493-8244                    \.___________________________./
> >http://www.localnetsolutions.com
> >
> >GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
> ><jkinney at localnetsolutions.com>
> >Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C 6CA7
> >
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> >iD8DBQBEmA1LYZCtw4KcbKcRAoinAKCB/qfkC/yaG5cj12IepKjOp7wgwQCgkEYU
> >Q09QbDfzyG5wyruYgze25ms=
> >=+xsb
> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ale mailing list
> >Ale at ale.org
> >http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale



More information about the Ale mailing list