ULTra Robo-Taxi 282
irksome writes: "Found a link on msnbc about a driver-less taxi pod. According to the article, the vehicle has begun road tests in the city of Cardiff, Wales. The pod, known as ULTra (Urban Light Transport) could make driver-free transport a reality and not just the stuff of futuristic fantasy."
NYC (Score:4, Funny)
Re:NYC (Score:1)
Oh no (Score:3, Funny)
Impressive (Score:4, Funny)
And instead of running on inconvenient roads, you just need to build a special 1.5 meter track to your destination. My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!
Re:Impressive (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it could be... especially if you don't own a car, and/or those roads are traffic-jammed. No parking fees to pay, either. Assuming there are enough pods to go around, it's almost like having your own chauffeur...
Re:Impressive (Score:3, Interesting)
There are other related systems that perform at much higher speed. My personal favourite is SkyTran [skytran.net], which is a MagLev system that operates at up to 150MPH, doesn't suffer from congestion, and because it doesn't have to stop at intersections, or to pick up and set down other passengers, it's actually much quicker and more convenient than any other form of transportation, including private cars.
And instead of running on inconvenient roads, you just need to build a special 1.5 meter track to your destination. My, this IS cheaper and easier than driving!
The track for these systems costs heaps less than the same distance worth of road, and has less wear-and-tear (especially in the case of SkyTran). A city implementing this instead of just blindly building more roads will actually turn a profit on it within a decade.
What's more, the absence of drivers means no speeding, running red lights, no pedestrians getting knocked down, no drunk drivers.
These systems could quite easily replace the automobile, and they bring so many benefits there's no reason why cities shouldn't be planning things this way now.
Re:Impressive (Score:4, Funny)
And the camera at every stop "to increase passenger safety." Well, I remember these western movies where people in this thing called a stagecoach that moved at about 25mph would get stopped by these bad guys on horses. Just find a place where the pod goes out of sight from the road, put your jacket over the rails (auto-stop if it detects something in the track!), and wait for the prey.
Re:Impressive (Score:2)
As to this being difficult, it can't be any more difficult explaining the USA's Washington DC Metro fare system with each station a different cost and peak-pricing and the map is *there* but the fare-card machines are *here* and the turnstyles are back *that* way and the card has to be fed *thus* and used again to exit...
Wrong comparison (Score:2)
So what? That's not what it's for. From the article:
Advanced Transport Systems estimate that building an ULTra network would cost about one-third to one-half of the amount needed for a light railway.
It's not positioned as an alternative to cars, but to light rail.
25MPH: Sounds good to me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, this kind of system is not aimed at your small, suburban college town; if you can fly down streets today at 30-40MPH in your private car pretty much any old time, there is little reason for ANY form of public transporation, period. If you work or travel on the streets of a major city, 15 MPH average speed would sound pretty good. In fact, I suspect there is a minimum average speed that people need to travel at before they give up working in the city, and that is probably fairly low. This drives the need to adopt new technologies and to make major infrastructure changes in a city. If you can't guarantee 10MPH with horse-and-buggies, you have to build roads and parking for autos.
If you do nothing, then transportation becomes a limiting factor in growth, and you may actually contract the size of your city. The question is, if you want to add a 10,000 commuters, what is the best way to accomodate them? There is no general answer to this, it must be answered on a case by case basis.
If you currently have uncongested roads (where cars travel on average close to the legal maximum speed), the cheapest thing would be to just have people come in their private cars. However, if you have congested roads, then adding 10,000 private automobiles would have a large marginal effect on the average travel speed. In other words you get more congested.
In that case, the next step would be to move to busses. If you can get high utilization, then the impact on your existing traffic jams is almost eliminated.
Except that getting high utilization is tough. Travel time on the bus is not so good. The bus moves at the same slow speed as the rest of traffic, but it has to stop to load and unload passengers. This factor is so important in utilization that LA has designed busses for fast load/unload, and given them the ability to change traffic lights as they are approaching intersections.
IIRC there are several significant design features of the system described which combine to allow cars to travel on average much closer to their design maximum than a bus or even a subway. First, end-to-end travel. You don't have to get off to change lines, which saves time. Second, personal travel. The cars are small and serve just you, so you don't have to wait for the cars to load and unload passengers taking different journeys than you. Third, exclusive track/lane. This means that you are not impeded by other vehicles.
Ideally, you could build a "real time" travel system, by which I mean a system which could, barring mechanical break down, deliver a passenger from one point to another in completely predictable time. This in itself would have great value, provided that the average speed was over something like 10 MPH. If you know that you can make a meeting across town in fifteen or twenty minutes, guaranteed, this would eliminate slack time that you would normally plan for the various kinds of unexpected delays. If you could deliver somebody across town at 20MPH average speed guaranteed, for around the cost of a taxi ride, then this would be a popular service.
there must not be any vandals in whales... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:there must not be any vandals in whales... (Score:1)
Re:there must not be any vandals in whales... (Score:2)
--
Evan "And not Brustian Orcas" E.
Same thing in Tokyo. Wouldn't last 10 minutes. (Score:2)
My imediate reaction is, This Is Not New York!
Oh, and the taxis here are clean, smell good, and run on propane.
But just like New York, they don't speak much English.
Bob-
Read the subject line, dork! (Score:2)
Re:Read the subject line, dork! (Score:2)
Are they immigrants that speak Japanese, or are they born and raised Japanese people?
Ahh yes (Score:1)
The same futuristic look that we try to reduce in modern highways after negative reactions to the "futuristic" highways built in the 60's.
Not that I don't think that it's a cool idea, but I think that underground is better than above ground, it helps the viewshed.
Re:Ahh yes (Score:2, Informative)
Vaporware. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, how is this going to be cost effective, I.E., what is the benefit to this? I can guarantee that buying and maintaining the robot costs more than getting a driver and paying him $8/hour for 8 hours a day. Will this be a novelty item or just something useful?
Re:Vaporware. (Score:2)
According to the article, the vehicle has begun road tests in the city of Cardiff, Wales.
Hmm...seems pretty tangible to me. Anyway, your tone suggests that you think it's a car that drives around on normal highways. Not so. The vehicle's web site is worth clicking on.
Re:Vaporware. (Score:1)
-Sara
They won't last long. (Score:1)
Has to drive better than the locals (Score:4, Funny)
Did you see the pic? (Score:1)
Hmm.. come to think of it, if that thing ever grows popular, it will really look like sperms and eggs when you'll watch the streets from above
Resistant to vandalism, snow, rain and ice... (Score:1)
I can see it now, Robo Taxi pulls a gun on you when you forget to pay him =)
Whooo (Score:4, Insightful)
"Passengers will 'hail' the pod from a designated stop, where they select the required destination along a set route." Sort of like a bus. Except buses don't cost $2 million to build, and they seat more than four passengers... additionally, they expect a trip to cost as much as a bus, except buses are cheaper, higher capacity, don't require a renovation of an infrastructure, already available, and in many cases faster than these pods.
Seriously, though, what if someone swipes the battery, smashes the windshield, or perhaps "disables" the potentially raised rail? Who would get sued? Or would they make you sign a disclaimer (the "you can't touch us if you get killed" variety)?
Basically, what I'm seeing is that we'd be better off *not* investing in these things: too expensive for too small of a gain.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whooo (Score:3, Interesting)
I outran this bus [clark.nv.us] one day while biking home from work. We started nearly even at timepoint C (Lake Mead and Rainbow) and went south. By the time I had to turn eastward halfway between timepoints G and H (Tropicana and Rainbow), I was barely ahead of the bus. I made all the stops the lights imposed; the bus made the stops it needed to pick up and drop off passengers. I'm not exactly in the best shape (kinda overweight, actually) and my bike isn't a racing bike (it's a six-speed cruiser), but I didn't have to work too hard at keeping up with the bus. I think I did somewhere around 25 km/h (give or take a bit) most of the way, IIRC.
Re:Whooo (Score:2)
Since that day I haven't contributed a single penny to the bus system. It's a broken service, despite the steep price and pathetic QoS. I'd rather pay gas and parking than invest in those cretins, the added expense of handling my own vehicle is more than made up for by actually getting to work on time everyday (or at least being late, but consistent
Re:Whooo (Score:2)
Although... (Score:4, Funny)
How is this "Taxi"? (Score:2)
Well, as long as your destination is near that route, you'll be fine. But this is more like a bus service with a small vehicle than a taxi car.
A taxi car should be able to get to any point in the city/village/town, and take orders/bribes from passengers who ask it to go faster. =)
-Cyc
Umm. This is a repeat. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it takes a while for MSN to get old news from the BBC.
how do they do insurence? (Score:1, Insightful)
gangway! (Score:5, Funny)
"We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway."
Oh that's a nice feature to plan for
I suppose the original plan was to add big nerf-style bumpers instead so that at 25mph the unobservant kiddies would just bounce off gently
heh, i just noticed this one:
"What about vandalism?
We hope that the system will be a source of pride to the community it serves so that vandalism incidents will be limited."
In _some_ communities, *vandalism* is a source of pride, so "vandalism incidents will be frequent, persistent and guaranteed"
Re:gangway! (Score:2)
"We also plan a detection system that will automatically stop the vehicle if there is an obstacle in the guideway."
Oh that's a nice feature to plan for
I suppose the original plan was to add big nerf-style bumpers instead so that at 25mph the unobservant kiddies would just bounce off gently
Nope. This [fas.org] was the original idea for keeping the way clear. It may still be implemented in less civilized parts of the world, like nyc.
.
It's stupid, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the technology is already here, the important advances in travel will come as soon as there is a market. When I say the technology is already here, I mean that no scientific discovery is needed to pull this off, just some clever engineers and bit pushers.
We should applaud the invention becasue of what it will lead to, instead of ridiculing the present "state of the art."
hmm, now they just need... (Score:1)
How about artificial smell generators to simulate that real taxi cab experience?
well, it is a start (Score:1)
Technical Article (Score:4, Informative)
Personal Public Transport [bris.ac.uk]
Lots of discussion of transportation systems, network layout, engineering, control, etc.
Re:Technical Article (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Technical Article (Score:2)
There's an index of innovative transportation technologies [washington.edu] at the University of Washington.
I came across this while looking for more information on a French project called Aramis (which was cancelled a while back). Aramis consisted of driverless pods running on tracks controlled by a central computer. Interestingly the Aramis people drew a parallel with packet switching technologies ... (i.e. the pods as addressed packets being directed to destinations at switches).
Electric Eye... (Score:5, Funny)
It sort of worked too, at least from video tapes from a car driving down the street. It could identify human shape and draw a little box around it.
The guy seemed a little distressed when I pointed out to him that his technology looked a LOT more useful as a robotic machine-gun targetting system.
Funny how people can fool themselves.
Re:Electric Eye... (Score:2)
Okay, well what about midgets and motorized paraplegics ? "It's a bike, it's a moose, it's a Geo Tracker!.. oh crap, it's a >splat< ok, *WAS* a cripple, now it's a stain on my driveshaft."
Be it Mercedes or NASA, no machine can possibly know how to handle all the wide-ranging things it might encounter. Until we all have GPS chips in our necks that are polled by every electronic device at every millisecond, these automated wet dreams will remain vapor.
Uh-Oh! (Score:2)
I just hope it doesn't run on embedded windows [slashdot.org]!
Not really an intelligent device. (Score:1)
As long as it's privately built, who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
The article says it costs "only half as much as Light Rail", but so what? One Light Rail sytem of my acquaintence, San Jose CA, costs 8 times more to operate than it brings in through ticket sales.
The taxpayers are stuck with this bloated wart-hog of a white elephant, a political monstrosity that cannot be allowed to go away.
So maybe this ULTra really is the next GreatThing(tm, us pat off). If so it will pay for itself, and investors will be happy to build it in order to profit from it.
At least that way no one is forced to pay for something they don't want.
Bob-
Re:As long as it's privately built, who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummmm - you do you realize that "taxpayers" (also called Citizens or Residents...) are stuck with bloated wart-hog white elephant that is the SURFACE STREETS. Every resident pays his own insurance and vehicle. then we all dump a TONNE of cash together to build roadways.
If so it will pay for itself, and investors will be happy to build it in order to profit from it.
Except when the present system is already completely supported by tax dollars - see above note about the car infrastructure.
At least that way no one is forced to pay for something they don't want
Umm - if i ride the bus and ride a bike, can i get my road-tax-money back?
I agree completely. (Score:2)
At least back before government took over building roads, the only people who paid for them were the ones that used them.
At least it's still legal to home school, even though they won't give you back the taxes they already extracted for that schooling.
Bob-
Re:I agree completely. (Score:2)
You contradict yourself. (Score:2)
By your logic, a private road is a public good. I agree. However, then you mention street lights, which I would gladly see ripped out. My tax money is being used to polute the night sky with so much light people cannot see the stars any more. Such abuse is criminal, but since it's the government doing it they cannot be punished.
And you might like this site:
http://www.mises.org/
Bob-
People like you are part of the problem (Score:2)
You must realize that the roadway system is currently supported by taxpayers because all taxpayers and non-taxpayers benefit from it. Since you live in Canada, a developed country, you can't even think that you don't benefit from public roadway systems.
Anyone living in any first-world country greatly benefits from roadway development! How much would it cost to buy your food, clothes, medicine, or other goods and services if there was no way for them to economically arrive at your local vendors?
Taxpayers, and not all citizens pay taxes, fund the construction and maintenance of these roads for the benefit of the local and national economy. The roadway ifrastructure is an engine of commerce!
Light rail, mass transit, etc. are not fair to taxpayers, as not all taxpayers (most) don't use them, and only marginal economic benefit is provided to the local area by them. In the San Jose example sited at the beginning of this thread, the riders (beneficiaries) of the rail system provide revenue of only 1/8 the cost of operation, which is not profitable in any length of time. If the fares were calculated to be break-even, then the ridership is too low. If the fares were increased to make this operation economically feasible, the ridership will fall even lower. The light rail is limited to pedestrian and bike ridership, with no possibility of commercial utility, so there is no benefit to the local economy derrived from it. It simply doesn't work, so the taxpayers get hosed.
The only exceptions, where mass transit is viable, are where large transient populations exist. Primarily, this would be college towns where the local population doubles when school is in session, and tourist traps. In college towns, you have a large "transportationally challenged" subset of the population, and the local economy does derrive substantial benefit from the public transit ridership. In heavy tourism areas, you will find privatized mass transit that can operate successfully while turning a profit.
The roadway system, while not perfect, does provide wealth by making inexpensive commerce possible. It is a worthy enterprise to be funded by the public.
-- Len
Re:People like you are part of the problem (Score:2)
Are you blinded by ideology or did you just not read my post? Regardless of your use of these roads, you still benefit from them. Your cost of living is greatly affected by the presense of the highway and road systems in all of the developed world. They enable you to have a much higher quality of life because they make everything you need to get cheaper. Also, there are no current alternatives which would return more for our tax investment. Railroads had their day and now they can't compete, even with government subsidies out the wazoo!
There are other problems with the Cardiff system besides ones raised in other posts. Pollution you say, about the current roadway system. I contend that the Cardiff system will cause more!
As much as I've wanted breeder reactors and cold fusion, they just haven't materialized. Where will the electricity come from to power this thing? Besides nuclear, we don't have any clean power generation, and nuclear causes many nutcases to get their panties in a bunch.
Besides that, what about the heavy metals used in the production and disposal of the batteries that this thing will have to use?
Also, I feel that if they could honestly get this system built and running with only 30 cars, for $65 million, it would be a bargain! If this thing was truely viable, I would think that Disney World and EPCOT would already have one of these running. They dont.
I still contend that there will be NO Return On Investment (ROI) for most public transit systems, especially this one!
--Len
Re:Light rail (Score:2)
And this is bad.....how? I notice that you don't include taxi's in your list.
Before you knee-jerk, think about it: if you had all that tax money that is otherwise removed from your paycheck, what would you do with it?
Might you invest in a local transport project? Might you use it to facilitate your working from home, so you don't have to commute?
Just some considerations to think about before declaring that demand for taxpayer funded transportation would not otherwise be met.
Bob-
Prove it. (Score:2)
So prosecute poluters. Invest in a for-profit parking garage. Design and sell telecommuting consultant services.
Chicken Little blind assertions may win elections, but they're useless in an argument.
Bob-
You're almost there. (Score:2)
That means, you build the fscknig system and become a multi-billionare from its success.
To force people at gun point to support you is a pathetic excuse for not wanting to do the work yourself. You're taking the easy way out like every blood-sucking bureaucratic vampire in history.
Produce something good, and people will support it without your using force. Have the courage of your convictions and put yourself on the line, rather than using force and coersion to do it.
People might respect you. And you might fail. But this way, they won't hate you.
Bob-
This will finally (Score:1)
why don't we just get rid of cars altogether... (Score:1)
Damnit, they're just not intelligent ways to get around. Even if we eliminate the use of fossil fuels with the vehicles, the costs of building and maintaining the roadways, not to mention the fossil fuel consumption THAT involves, is a waste of our resources and unintelligent.
What about trains?? It seems obvious - safer, carry more people with less resource cost, eliminate the nasty roads all over the U.S. (being U.S. centric here as I'm an American, apologize to all non-USians)..I know other countries take trains more seriously, why do the auto manufactures have so much damn influence here? It's just stupid!!! I saw a show on PBS the other night about advances in intelligent cars, and it involved spending tremendous amount in research, investing in new roadways that are prepared for these new cars, etc...why not invest this time and energy in a long term solution?
More public transportation! More incentives to use public transportation! Let's start being intelligent about our future infrastructure...oh, I'm just wasting my breath...*sigh*
Because cars go exactly where you want them to (Score:1)
We already *know* that cars are inefficient and polluting but they so fit our lifestyle. No matter how good a public transit system is it can never take you "exactly" where you want to go 100% of the time. Then you factor in weather, who wants to wait for a bus or train in the snow? Cars do more than just get someone from point A to point B. Try to include the rest of us in your little world next time.
Re:why don't we just get rid of cars altogether... (Score:1)
I swear I'm not trying to troll...this is what I really think and what occured to me when reading the article. I didn't intend to be a troll and I think the fact that it seems obvious and a not very good troll to you should help show that that was not my intent.
I don't think it's that foolish either: cars really are an inefficient and unintelligent mode of transport compared to trains or other mass transit.
Am I the only one? (Score:4, Interesting)
By god, I don't see the wonder in it.
--T
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:1)
You're not the only one. I'd much rather prefer to own my personal transportation. I'm not in the automotive industry, but I do hope my peers keep working on making personal cars safer and more efficient. Driving is very relaxing to me, it gives me a break from the constant work.
Another ten years, and public transportation will be a thing of the past -- outside of extremely dense urban areas at least.
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:1)
If driving wasn't enjoyable, people wouldn't buy nice/fast cars.
It's been a long time coming. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
From a pure engineering standpoint, these things are a great idea and are a much better solution to the "public" transit (as opposed to "Mass" transit as we're saddled with now) problem. The rails are relatively inexpensive to fabricate. They're much less intrusive. They can be switched easily to give better coverage. And the vehicles are light, quiet, and cheap.
The vandalism problem is probably the hardest to solve. And the obvious problem of pulling "unusable" vehicles out of service. Still, it's nice to see a city willing to try a project like this.
Driver-less pod? Old news. (Score:1)
But... (Score:3, Funny)
If not, the private investigator business is going to get much more difficult...
Re:But... (Score:1)
No. But it's on rails, so it'll have no problems understanding the line "follow that cab!"
first the taxi, then ... (Score:1)
So I guess the conversation about old drivers.... (Score:1)
Me: Stupid fscking old people can't drive worth a damn!
Mom: You'll be old someday too you know.
Me: Maybe, but I won't drive like that guy.
Mom: You may once you're old!
Me: People won't drive themselves anymore when I'm old.
AI hype here - why this won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about it. Either:
1) The "object" threshold is high, which means the first time this kills a toddler, there will be a massive lawsuit
or
2) The "object" threshold is low, which means these will be out of commision the moment a piece of trash crosses their path
Neither setting is workable in a city.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:AI hype here - why this won't work (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:AI hype here - why this won't work (Score:2)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:AI hype here - why this won't work (Score:2, Informative)
Several metro lines in Lyons, France are driverless too. Funny, they are the only lines never affected by strikes (of which there are at least 10 a year).
Cars and the Future (Score:1)
Cars are, quite frankly, a dumb idea. Carting a ton or more of metal around to get usually one, but sometimes up to 4 people around is absurd. The vehicles use more energy to propel themselves than their cargo. Add to this the fact that most people can't even drive properly.
I hope we're all smart enough to live without traffic jams in the future. Who knows? Perhaps we'll have Segway Jams (yeah right) or people just won't need to travel as much, as often.
CHECK OUT THIS weeeeeeee (Score:1, Funny)
You are now chatting with 'Chris S.'
Chris S.: Allow me to introduce myself as your chat representative...
Chris S.: My name is Chris
Chris S.: How may I help you today?
uce@ftc.gov: can i register someone else's name for a
Chris S.: Yes, as long as it is in the format of firstname.lastname.name
Chris S.: However some people may have an intellctual property claim on a certain name
uce@ftc.gov: so like I can do chris.s.name/sucks?
uce@ftc.gov: haha, jk
uce@ftc.gov: no i mean like dubya.bush.nate
uce@ftc.gov: name
Chris S.: Yes, however if you register a name that is slanderous or if you use the name for slanerous purposes Register.com cannot guarantee there will not be a legal dispute
Chris S.: We do not take responsibility for any legal disputes that may result from such things
uce@ftc.gov: ok that is cool, I just want to verify that I could register it
uce@ftc.gov: is there a dispute policy like if someone tries to get their name?
Chris S.: Is there anything else I can help you with?
uce@ftc.gov: say someone registered my name and I want it
uce@ftc.gov: and their name isn't have my name
uce@ftc.gov: I MEAN WE ARE NOT THE SAME NAME
uce@ftc.gov: oh sory
uce@ftc.gov: anyways do you get the idea?
Chris S.: Well you can check our dispute policy at the bottom of our home page
Chris S.: It is a very small link at the very bottom of the page
Chris S.: Or just go to http://www.register.com/dispute-policy.cgi?
uce@
uce@ftc.gov: oh
Chris S.: For specifics on the
uce@ftc.gov: so that is through ICANN?
Chris S.: ICANN regulates these things, yes
uce@ftc.gov: so it's the same resolution people as for
Chris S.: The registry home page for
Chris S.: ICANN regulates all registrars on the internet
uce@ftc.gov: is there special consideration for a
uce@ftc.gov: i'm kidding, i just want to see if i can register a
Chris S.: The
uce@ftc.gov: i dunno if the person who was born with the name can come and post-claim the site because it's their name
Chris S.: You would have to check the dispute policies for more detailed information
uce@ftc.gov: how about hybrid names?
uce@ftc.gov: like court cases?
uce@ftc.gov: roe.wade.name
Chris S.: Im not sure what you mean
Chris S.: I cant say specifically, however if someone was named roe wade they would be entitled to that name
uce@ftc.gov: ok thank you !!!!!11
uce@ftc.gov: l;sad
uce@ftc.gov: asdl;dkeru
uce@ftc.gov: man i'm high
Chris S.: Thank you for visiting. Please contact us if you have any further questions.
Electric powertrain (Score:2)
Typically Electric Powertrains are not economically feasible for automobiles. Although The motors are relatively cheap, it's the batteries and motor controllers that create most of the cost.
Why not use an inexpensive proven diesel or gas engine solution? Heck, even Propane or an alternative fuel? My guess is that an electric powertrain controller is more easily controlled via a computer than an I.C. engine. With "throttle by wire" becoming standard on engines, even the control is relatively negligible.
I am not arguing that they are wrong in their decision, I'm just curious to see what influenced it.
Re:Electric powertrain (Score:2)
In short there's no need for a large quantity of stored energy or even particularly high energy densities. I'm sure the simplicities and efficiencies of an electrical motor as well as lack of local effluent more then cliched any discussion.
My only question would be if they'd considered a fly-wheel. They'd also be suitable for storing the requisite energy as well as providing a nice bit of stabilization, not require any nasty-for-the-environment materials. As long as the wheel were encased in some sort of GLARE-type safety cage it would be as safe or safer and likely last longer.
Repeat! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Repeat! (Score:1)
Try this! [slashdot.org]
Disney World (Score:1)
Block off all the down-town streets and just run shuttles in loops from parking garages and around town.
Why? Consider how much of the cost of running a public transportation is tied up in getting and accounting for individual fares.
Thye could probably buy a city-full of Disney shuttles for the salaries are of all the staff involved in fare collection.
Re:Disney World (Score:1)
One problem: most people would be embarrased to ride one of those shuttles. At the University of Utah in the Fall of 1997, everyone was fairly about the coming olympics. [of course the olympics were coming four years from then, but anyways]. The U decided that a short range disney-like shuttle tractor+four trailers would greatly augment the perfectly fine university shuttle bus system. It operated on the sidewalks, and was called something like the 'olympic trolley' or something stupid.
This thing drove in an endless loop all day, and I never saw more than 0-2 people on board. People were generally embarrassed to ride the thing. THe driver would usually slow down as one was walking on the sidewalk and practically beg for you to jump on.
It was a mess, and it never even ran during the recent olympics. So much for that idea. I imagine that closing a bunch of inner-city streets and instituting a transportation system people are used to seeing in amusement parks will be a very bad move. No matter how much good publicity you give it, people will still be pissed about the closed streets, plus they will feel like an ass for riding such a clownish mode of transport.
Solution for Phx, AZ (Score:1)
Walking in the crazy summer heat at 120 F from the bus station, home even for short distances would be very annoying if not impossible.
You know about our light rail "initiative", right? (Score:2)
Douglas J. Malewicki's SkyTran System [skytran.net]
That's right! That was the competitor to what we got, which is a normal, everyday, light rail system (which is somehow supposed to sit adjacent in some fashion to I-17 in some manner, as well as along 19th Avenue - where they plan to find the space, is anybody's guess) - the dollar value of one car (of light rail) could have funded a lot of work on SkyTran - think about that come tax time.
Another thing to think about: Supposedly construction is supposed to start in 2003 - but I have yet to hear anything more on this boondoggle, which I think merely went to line corrupt politician pockets...
Re:Solution for Phx, AZ (Score:2)
Damn (Score:1)
Just when I thought my futuristic fantasies were at their peak, this thing comes along. Now what do I do for fantasy?
World's transportation problems... (Score:1)
Who cleans them? (Score:1)
Just don't get these things mad... (Score:2, Funny)
Driverless Cabs? (Score:1)
PRT seems better (Score:2)
Yet another track system (Score:2)
Current technology isn't up to driving in heavy traffic, but some kind of system that uses narrow dedicated roadways, low speeds, and automated low-speed maneuvering in station areas is within reach. Automated materials-handling vehicles in industrial plants have been doing that for almost 20 years now.
A reasonable modern design might look something like this:
Buses suck (Score:2)
Now when I get to work I find myself fully awake and in a great mood. Much better than reading/sleeping on a slow, always late, overcramped bus with a bunch of loud teens.
I like it so much, that sometimes I leave home 20-30 minutes early and just drive around for the joy of it, with my little subwoofer kicking hard and fast. Driving is like the hormonal impact of watching girls make out, it's a gentle tingly feeling you'd want to hold forever (at least until you run out of gas).
The real question is.. (Score:2)
Someone's cooking the numbers (Score:2)
maximum speed 25mph (40kph)
But from the Fact File [atsltd.co.uk]:
ULTra average speed is about 40 kph
So which is it, maximum speed or average?
Can't those guys name things properly? (Score:2)
And it's hardly anything new, there is one that has been running for 30 years [washington.edu] at the West-Virginia University, in Morgantown (WV - duh?). (Better pics here [presby.edu]).
Driver-less? (Score:2, Funny)
"Where the hell am I?"
"You're in a Johnny-Cab!"
Re:Great (Score:2)
Re:Best NYC taxi story... (Score:1)
Re:Movies coming true at last!!!! (Score:2)