An "ideal" transport of the future

[Moreno]

I think an "ideal" transport have to solve the following problems of the modern transport. It includes:

1) Be physically incapable to get in any kind of accidents.

2) Create no congestion.

3) Create no parking problem.

4) Create no pollution.

5) Be very fast.

6) Be flexible, desirably all-terrain and offer door-to-door delivery.

I think most of this problems (with exception of the last one) can be solved (to a large extent) if people will switch to rail-bound personal transport. Something similar to this:

http://www.eltis.org/discover/news/europes-first-urban-personal-rapid-transit-system-approved-poland-0

However, flexibility and door-to-door delivery could be an issue. Not certain how much, because we can build such rail tracks to each and every house and building and wherever any kind of usual roads lead.

Also, it may offer a certain degree of automation. But still it looks like a step out of flexibility that humans dreamt about. An instant teleportation of a sizable objects is still too far fetched. Any other ideas?

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Moreno

[Externet]

Nothing better than ---->

[Moreno]

30 minutes ago, Externet said:

Nothing better than ---->

If you need a cumbersome device like on the photo what about flexibility? It may teleport you between stations but what if you need to park near a boutique?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Moreno said:

However, flexibility and door-to-door delivery could be an issue. 

Isn't that priority #1? The system has to be useful.

Quote

Not certain how much, because we can build such rail tracks to each and every house and building and wherever any kind of usual roads lead.

Can you? Rail track switching seems to be a bit more cumbersome that road intersections (active vs passive) and has more infrastructure — railway and support beams.

[Moreno]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Isn't that priority #1? The system has to be useful.

Can you? Rail track switching seems to be a bit more cumbersome that road intersections (active vs passive) and has more infrastructure — railway and support beams.

Personally for me a safety would be a priority N1. And other such as congestion, speed, pollution are important too. Railway transport also would be a way cheaper to maintain than gasoline cars. In my understanding railway transport is usually regarded as cheaper than automotive. Not sure about PRT, though. 

[studiot]

Thank you for bringing this system to our attention. +1

 

I just expect that it would be far too expensive to run without enormous state subsidies.

All the UK new tram projects have lost tens to hundreds of millions and been curtailed because they are so cumbersome.

 

Personally I have heard from mechanical engineers that Robert Heinlein's 'rolling roads' are a more achievable proposition.
We already have the beginnings of this in airports and shopping malls.

[Phi for All]

Transportation is NOT a one-size-fits-all proposition. I think a broader array of options is needed for flexibility. I also question the whole door-to-door delivery requirement, which seems unreasonable for many otherwise effective modes of travel. 

I love the idea of high-speed elevated monorail systems that don't interact with automobile roads at all. But even if it was available to me, I'll still be flying to NY next week because it'll only take a few hours, and the plane won't be stopping at every major city on the way. 

I'll take light rail if I'm going to downtown Denver or the airport, where my car is actually more of a nuisance and an expense. I take my car if I'm going to multiple places in a day (which is most days). 

I used to ride my bike to the grocers for small runs, but I've gotten better at planning so my groceries no longer fit in my backpack. Unfortunately, most places I need to go close enough for biking require I also have a bigger payload.

I can't think of a single system that would be ideal. And many times you can adjust your habits to suit the system. A buddy of mine was horrified to find that taking light rail to work was going to double his commute time compared to driving himself, until his company pointed out they'd pay him for that time if he'd have his coffee and catch up on emails on the ride in every morning. Now he hits the ground running when he gets there. 

Wasn't it Asimov who had the series of moving walkways across the city, so you could always move to a faster one going in the right direction (like the express lane on some highways)? That might be a good way to move folks from a residential area to a commercial one, where they could choose from faster options depending on their destinations.

[studiot]

32 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Wasn't it Asimov who had the series of moving walkways across the city, so you could always move to a faster one going in the right direction (like the express lane on some highways)? That might be a good way to move folks from a residential area to a commercial one, where they could choose from faster options depending on their destinations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll

[Moreno]

39 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Wasn't it Asimov who had the series of moving walkways across the city, so you could always move to a faster one going in the right direction (like the express lane on some highways)? That might be a good way to move folks from a residential area to a commercial one, where they could choose from faster options depending on their destinations.

I like more his another idea about levitating cars. Moving roads would be very energy consuming, create lot of noise, etc. What about comfort? Will people need to stay or sit? I think a cabins are better for psychological reasons as they create feeling of private space. People are different though. I enjoy taking public transit more than ride a personal vehicles because I develop feeling of claustrophobia and loneliness in the later (slightly).

Edited September 14, 2017 by Moreno

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

(for this response I've changed "Create no Pollution " to "Cause no ecological harm" since it's easier to tackle that way, and fairer)

"1) Cause no ecological harm"

I highly doubt that a power supply which causes no ecological damage to the environment would simply only be used to power cars, chances are if it were used it'd be used in the most widespread manner possible. Therefore, let's ignore fossil fuels as they are flat out not long-term. Electric cars require electricity (Duh!) and the ways in which we obtain electricity is often just as widespread as the manners in which we use it. Since a large amount of the problems associated with electric production are more important to some than to others, I'll list a number of problems with each form of power supply and I'll let people decide on their own. This list is not all inclusive, feel free to to point out stuff I missed.

Disclaimer: I am not a qualified scientist, please do not take anything I say at face value. 

Nuclear: 

• Radioactive waste dependant on the form of nuclear energy is generally one of Nuclear's biggest problems.  Currently the cost of Nuclear waste management costs approximately $46 Billion US Dollars according to the Nuclear Energy Institute ( this is a combination of the Nuclear waste costs of all 50 United states, individual breakdowns are available here: https://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-Cycle/Nuclear-Waste-Fund-Payment-Information-by-State ). It is at this point I should place notice that all of this information is sourced from a group who benefits from nuclear power, therefore there is a bias, but I doubt it matters in this subject as it's quite transparent. Nevertheless, this is entirely isolated to Nuclear fission, there is nothing here that implies we will not be able to develop the method of nuclear fusion which is more efficient offers cheaper alternatives. 
• The affect on the price of Kilo-watt-hour of energy is approximately  1/10 of a cent due to environmental costs. 
• Price Per Kilo-Watt-Hour as a rated retail price is approximately 2.10 cents.

Solar: 

• Solar is the most efficient method in terms of environmental protection, however it is expensive. The cost that Solar power would have to charge in order to outweigh it's price would be approximately 5 cents per Kwh.  Though this varies from country to country, apparently this is the average price. There're very few environmental problems resulting from solar other than the use of land to build the solar panels. The main concern with it's use (represented by it's price) is that it is not available in every area on earth, it's incredibly difficult to get a genuinely efficient solar panel functional in areas where there's little sun. Probably why I don't see many solar panels in Scotland :P. 
• Keep in mind that Solar is (although long term) easily damaged,  come a hurricane and we're in trouble. 

Wind Farms: 

• Wind farms, much like solar, are environmentally friendly on the whole but can cause ecological problems when you look at the quantity of land that they can take up. They also cause problems to wildlife that are airborne and will often kill birds, this can reduce the biodiversity of birds and disrupt local food chains, causing a knock-on affect.
• The price per Kwh of wind produced energy can scale up to 9 cents. This is fairly high in comparison to things such as Nuclear, or even Solar. 
• They are limited in terms of where they can be built, wind farms are not a sustainable solution year-round and are also not applicable to areas where there's no wind whatsoever (duh!)

Hydroelectricity:

• Hydroelectricity can cause problems ecologically when we usurp areas that previously marine life occupied (Fish mostly). This can, and will cause problems within food chains for anything that relies off of fish for most of it's diet. 
• Hydroelectricity is estimated at about 50% of the price of nuclear, at about 0.83 cents per Kwh. 
• It's availability could be problematic as the costs of keeping water flowing in places where temperatures are too low (below 0*C) for water to flow, will have to have their temperatures risen. 

So... what does everyone think? which form of electrical production would you see in majority use or would you want to just see all out? I think that Nuclear is the way forward. 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by DeoxyRiboRobert

[Phi for All]

Moving walkways.

Quote

The concept of a megalopolis based on high-speed walkways is common in science fiction. The first works set in such a location are "A Story of the Days To Come" (1897) and When The Sleeper Wakes (1899) (also republished as The Sleeper Awakes), written by H. G. Wells, which take place in a future London. Thirty years later, the silent film Metropolis (1927) depicted several scenes showing moving sidewalks and escalators between skyscrapers at high levels. Later, the short story "The Roads Must Roll" (1940), written by Robert A. Heinlein, depicts the risk of a transportation strike in a society based on similar-speed sidewalks. The novel is part of the Future History saga, and takes place in 1976. Isaac Asimov, in the novel The Caves of Steel (1954) and its sequels in the Robot series, uses similar enormous underground cities with a similar sidewalk system. The period described is about the year 5,000.

 

[Moreno]

13 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

(for this response I've changed "Create no Pollution " to "Cause no ecological harm" since it's easier to tackle that way, and fairer)

"1) Cause no ecological harm"

I highly doubt that a power supply which causes no ecological damage to the environment would simply only be used to power cars, chances are if it were used it'd be used in the most widespread manner possible. 

So... what does everyone think? which form of electrical production would you see in majority use or would you want to just see all out? I think that Nuclear is the way forward. 

 

 

Don't forget that average efficiency of non-hybrid cars is 15-20%, while average efficiency of electric motors (in trams) is 90%. Still there are loses in electricity transmission. Around 4-5 times more efficient. So, regardless the source of electricity it suppose to cut pollution a lot. 

I think combination of nuclear, hydro and geothermal can do it in the nearest decades. It is claimed that Thorium reactors would be able to burn all the nuclear waste created by Uranium power plants. A Yellowstone supervolcano would be capable to power all the Central States, possibly. Nuclear, wind, hydro and geothermal continue to work at full power at night. This electricity can be cheap.

[Phi for All]

30 minutes ago, Moreno said:

I like more his another idea about levitating cars.

Ugh, flying cars are a logistical nightmare! Traffic in 3D with city density is a formula for disaster.

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

Just now, Phi for All said:

Ugh, flying cars are a logistical nightmare! Traffic in 3D with city density is a formula for disaster.

not to mention that all it takes is an idiot on his phone to result in a miniature plane flying into a skyscraper.

[Moreno]

1 minute ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

not to mention that all it takes is an idiot on his phone to result in a miniature plane flying into a skyscraper.

I don't see a huge advantage in flying cars. Will they be faster? Will they be more flexible? Especially in the situation of an airial congestion. But I sure many people will get a psychological challenge by observing all the sky clouded by cars.

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

Just now, Moreno said:

I don't see a huge advantage in flying cars. Will they be faster? Will they be more flexible? Especially in the situation of an airial congestion. But I sure many people will get a psychological challenge by observing all the sky clouded by cars.

I would say congestion is mostly the only issue solved by flying cars.Since obviously it's easier to drive around in an area as a drone would than a car tied to the ground. 

The only major thing I think we could actually achieve is the whole "No accidents" part, What about self-driving cars, they are a thing apparently?:  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/28/google-self-driving-car-how-does-it-work

[Moreno]

3 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

I would say congestion is mostly the only issue solved by flying cars.Since obviously it's easier to drive around in an area as a drone would than a car tied to the ground. 

The only major thing I think we could actually achieve is the whole "No accidents" part, What about self-driving cars, they are a thing apparently?:  https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/28/google-self-driving-car-how-does-it-work

Honestly, I'm skeptical about self driving cars at the moment because I just can't imagine how it is going to work and why it is going to be safe. How robots can adequately react on many unpredictable circumstances, such as a pedestrian running at red light, slippery roads, road works etc. How will they able to do a door-to-door delivery? Absolutely challenging at present state of technologies, I would say.

Flying cars will require a completely new level of development, I would think. Such as an energy source, propulsion system, materials, AI, etc. Desirably they would need to be gravity neutral like balloons and have ability to increase or decrease this property instantly depending on load.

Otherwise energy looses would be huge. Definitely they wouldn't suppose to have a wings or rotors. So, more similar to a balloon. Some kind of antigravity or negative mass would need to be discovered.

[studiot]

28 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Don't forget that average efficiency of non-hybrid cars is 15-20%, while average efficiency of electric motors (in trams) is 90%. Still there are loses in electricity transmission. Around 4-5 times more efficient. So, regardless the source of electricity it suppose to cut pollution a lot

Taken as a whole, trams (and other rail systems) are considerably less efficient than small IC engine cars.
The price of lowering pollution is a reduction in efficiency.

They are not necessarily safer either.
The recent incident of the crashed Croydon tram on its side amply demonstrates that they can have bigger accidents.

A few facts and figures:

A single Eurostar train takes 800 passengers

It weight 800 tonnes

Putting all those passengers in cars would occupy 800 yards of the M25 London orbital motorwaY

[Moreno]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Taken as a whole, trams (and other rail systems) are considerably less efficient than small IC engine cars.
The price of lowering pollution is a reduction in efficiency.

They are not necessarily safer either.
The recent incident of the crashed Croydon tram on its side amply demonstrates that they can have bigger accidents.

 

Can you explain why they are less efficient?

Personal rapid transit is a way safer than cars and can be regarded as almost accident free. For a reason that all movements on the rails can be easily controlled by electronics. It eliminates problem of congestion and allows to increase an average speed to 100+, maybe 300+ km/hr.

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Can you explain why they are less efficient?

Personal rapid transit is a way safer than cars and can be regarded as almost accident free. For a reason that all movements on the rails can be easily controlled by electronics. It eliminates problem of congestion and allows to increase an average speed to 100+, maybe 300+ km/hr.

You have more faith in electronics than is warranted by my (passenger) experience of controlled rail systems think is warranted.

There is a wonderful scen in the Norman Wisdom comedy where the hero is put into a centrifuge to practice Hi-gee.
He is shown the safety cut out button to press if the stress gets too much.
When they finally decide to stop the machine and drag him from it, they ask "Whys didn't you press the safety button?"

He holds out the button with its connecting lead broken off.

"I did"

 

As to efficiency the figures were in the last post.

The eurostar hauls around a ton of metal or more per passenger.
Trams are no different.

You can get 4 or more people in to a car that weights 1/4 to 1/2 ton

 

That is one of many reasons why they are more efficient.

The tractive effort of tyres on the road are also inherently more efficient than steel on steel.

And of course you have to allow for the inefficiencies of generating that electricity for the tram motor.

Edited September 14, 2017 by studiot

[Moreno]

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

1) You have more faith in electronics than is warranted by my (passenger) experience of controlled rail systems think is warranted.

There is a wonderful scen in the Norman Wisdom comedy where the hero is put into a centrifuge to practice Hi-gee.
He is shown the safety cut out button to press if the stress gets too much.
When they finally decide to stop the machine and drag him from it, they ask "Whys didn't you press the safety button?"

He holds out the button with its connecting lead broken off.

"I did"

 

As to efficiency the figures were in the last post.

2) The eurostar hauls around a ton of metal or more per passenger.
Trams are no different.

You can get 4 or more people in to a car that weights 1/4 to 1/2 ton

 

That is one of many reasons why they are more efficient.

The tractive effort of tyres on the road are also inherently more efficient than steel on steel.

1) PRT rail transport has only one degree of the freedom as cabins just follow each other. All the process can be automatized. Accident can happen only if a one cabin will strike the other in the back. But you simply can equip each cabin with a shock absorber for this reason. 

2) Principally, PRT can use maglev technology or magnetic bearings. Some projects of that type already exist.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

 Solar is the most efficient method in terms of environmental protection, however it is expensive. The cost that Solar power would have to charge in order to outweigh it's price would be approximately 5 cents per Kwh.   

That's not expensive.

2 hours ago, Moreno said:

I don't see a huge advantage in flying cars. Will they be faster? Will they be more flexible? Especially in the situation of an airial congestion. But I sure many people will get a psychological challenge by observing all the sky clouded by cars.

They have to actually exist as a viable technology, plus flight is energy intensive.

[Moreno]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's not expensive.

You will need all the Aluminum produced in the World annually to construct and maintain solar cells in order to provide all energy needs with their help. And this is just an Aluminum for a part of a solar cells. So, price of solar power will grow exponential when scaled up. It is too material extensive.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Moreno

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, Moreno said:

You will need all the Aluminum produced in the World annually to construct and maintain solar cells in order to provide all energy needs with their help. And this is just an Aluminum for a part of a solar cells. So, price of solar power will grow exponential when scaled up. It is too material extensive.

Citation needed, and nobody claimed solar will provide all of our needs.

All I noted was that 5 cents per kWh is not expensive. Solar is, or soon will be, below grid parity in many places.

[Moreno]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Citation needed

Obviously, that solar power requires larger amount of relatively sophisticated materials than any other type of energy, including wind power.