Posted by Mr Kurt Cobb |
|
Filed under : Scitizen >> Technology >> Future Energies >> Move People, Not Metal Key words : jpod,rapid transit,transportation,[OPINION] Move People, Not Metal25 Jun, 2008 04:22 pm | |
 | |
Enlarge text
Reduce text size
Send this article
Add to Facebook
Add to Yahoo ! MyWeb
Add to Furl
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Digg
Add to Google Bookmarks
Add to NewsvineOur current transportation system uses enormous amounts of energy primarily to move the weight of vehicles which transport passengers and freight. Bill James thinks we can improve transportation energy efficiency by an order of magnitude if we focus on moving the weight of passengers and freight instead of the weight of the vehicles that carry them.
Why move a ton to move a person? It's a very good question, and one that Bill James, whose background is in statistical process controls, began thinking about years ago. In 1999 he filed a patent for what he calls a physical Internet design for transportation. It's an on-demand networked solution for transportation that uses packet switching ideas currently associated with the Internet to move people and freight.
His idea has taken shape as the JPod, a cross between a gondola and a monorail. Other groups are developing systems that work on the same principle. In some systems the vehicles ride on the track or guideway. In others the vehicles are suspended from an overhead track like the JPod. (James provides links to sites for several other systems on the JPod home page.)
All the systems share three important characteristics: First, they are designed as personal rapid transit; users can ride alone or just with their party if they wish. Second, riders move to their destinations nonstop. All they do is enter their destination into the onboard computer. Third, riders don't wait for a vehicle; vehicles wait for them on a siding while other traffic flows past the station without stopping.
What James calls the "parasitic mass" is greatly reduced. A JPod weighs about 400 pounds. An automobile weighs many times more; for instance, a 2008 Toyota Camry weighs about 3,500 pounds. Moving one person with a JPod uses considerably less energy simply because the mass being moved is only a fraction of the Camry with passenger. The JPod, of course, multiplies its efficiency with each additional passenger. And, there is no reason it cannot be used for local delivery of freight as well.
In addition, James has designed the JPod system to operate on solar power gathered using panels mounted above the track. The system would be connected to the electrical grid; but it could supply most, if not all, of its own power.
He estimates construction costs of a JPod system would be one-tenth that of light rail and could be deployed much faster.
So, what's the holdup in deploying such systems? First, they are new. People aren't used to such ideas. Second, as James points out, such systems don't fit any checklist that government transportation agencies use to evaluate transit solutions. The agencies simply don't know what to make of packet switching transportation systems. Third, James is proposing such systems as profitmaking ventures with local partners who help fund and run the system. He believes private ownership of such systems will continuously drive improvement and efficiency and allow much more rapid deployment. This is yet another puzzle to planning agenices. Finally, there is the right-of-way issue. James believes that standards for efficiency might break this logjam. If a municipality sets a standard, say, five times the current mileage standard for cars, as the threshold for granting public right-of-ways to entrepreneurs willing to build a JPod or similar system, then he believes private capital will be available to construct such systems.
Municipalities would get a cut of the fares for granting the right-of-way and could use the money any way they see fit. Profits accruing to the owners from the first parts of the system could be used to extend it further. As with any network, the more nodes (read: stations) there are, the more valuable the network becomes, a perfect incentive for the owners to expand.
The personal rapid transit idea seems as if it would be acceptable to the motoring public because it is based on current transportation preferences. The vehicles seat four just like a car. The market has already shown that this configuration is preferred overwhelmingly by consumers. Second, users make nonstop trips from their point of origin to their destination just like they can in a car. But there are distinct advantages. There are no parking hassles. And there is no traffic congestion to deal with since pods do not have to wait behind other pods at stations nor for the pod ahead of them on the track. The pods are in constant motion until they reach their destination.
Will the cost put riders off? James believes such a system would first appear where travel by cab is the main option, for example, from an airport to a downtown area. It could therefore charge approximately what cabs charge. As the network expands, it would have to compete with other transit including automobiles. But, it would also be able to reduce its per-trip costs since so many more trips would be taken on a given amount of infrastructure. That means that personal rapid transit could end up being no more expensive than current public transit while serving more areas and providing greater convenience and speed.
The logic of such systems may very well propel their adoption over time. But James doesn't believe we have much time. He worries that the all-time peak in world oil production will arrive as soon as the next few years, but certainly no later than 25 years from now. That means we must act quickly to retool our entire transportation system. The personal rapid transit idea could be implemented quickly, it could run without fossil fuels, and it could increase energy efficiency by an order of magnitude or more. That sounds like a successful path for making a fast transition to a sustainable transportation system.
While such systems aren't the only possible solutions, they have the advantage of being able to work with existing transportation infrastructure such as trains, planes and buses along existing right-of-ways. And, they have the potential to replace the worst transportation villains, personal automobiles. This is especially true in cities plagued by traffic congestion.
Some personal rapid transit systems are scheduled to be built in near future. If they prove themselves workable, will the world wake up in time to take advantage of this revolutionary idea? Bill James thinks we have a fighting chance that it will.
| [1] |
The proposed J-Pod system makes sense in a lot of ways, but the transition to it from the current system requires considerable investment as well as faith that the system will, in fact, work as advertised. It seems that a lot of simulation would be required to proved that it would.
I would propose in the interim, that a lot of gasoline could be saved in urban/suburban driving by rationalizing traffic flow so not as many stops are incurred during the typical trip. This could be done by adopting a "timing method" where stoplights, with their two, three, and sometimes four-way lights are virtually eliminated. In its simplest form, the "timing-method" would required that during a given fifteen minute interval, only "north-south" traffic (based on a one-way street model) would be allowed, while all east-west traffic be stopped, followed by an a fifteen minute interval during which only east-west traffic is allowed, with all traffic in the north-south direction being stopped. Of course, motors in the "no-flow" direction would be turned off during the interval. It would not be necessary that all streets participate. Every third street could be made one-way, with alternating directions (six streets would make a cycle). Where necessary, street parking on the one-way thoroughfares would be prohibited. With proper design, planning and training, all trips of 30 miles or less should easily be completed in less that an hour, with a maximum of two, 15-minute "down periods". Average speed could approach 50-60 mph since there would be no cross-traffic to contend with, and many lanes of traffic would travel at nearly the same speed, making it safer. By reducing the number of stops by a factor of 3 or more, city mileage rating (mpg) would approach the highway mileage rating (typically 50% greater than the city rating). It would be made law, that those driving during an interval would have to provide full attention to driving. While in the waiting mode, motorists could shave, apply cosmetics, make a phone-call, grab something to eat or drink, stretch their legs, or simply converse with one's neighbor. It would also provide an opportunity to transfer vans/buses if one were using that mode of transportation. If every city adopted this model, US gasoline consumption could easily be reduced by 15-20 percent, while saving a lot of man-hours that would otherwise be wasted while sitting in traffic. Comment by Jerry Toman - 26 Jun, 2008 10:37 pm | ||
| [2] |
Brilliant design, having looked through the website. In order for this to be viable, the following are needed:
One, privacy matters; no surveillance. I've seen proposals of this type that include always-on cameras and microphones in the pods, "to deter crime and vandalism." That's a deal-killer. In a private automobile you can have private conversations and your identity and itinerary are not logged by Big Brother. These features are essential to preserve. It would be acceptable to have an emergency call button in each pod, controlled by the occupants, if help is needed. It would also be acceptable to have an inspection camera system that looks at each pod as it is returned, and detects obvious signs of vandalism after the passengers exit the pod but before they leave the station. Pods showing signs of vandalism should be pulled out of service for repair, to reduce the "like attracts like" incentive for more vandalism. Obviously pods should be constructed in a manner that is easy to keep clean (e.g. drunken rider throws up; hose out the pod with detergent and water) and is vandal resistant. How to preserve anonymous and private travel while apprehending those who vandalize pods, remains to be seen, but reaching for ubiquitous surveillance is clearly not the answer. One possibility is to require a security deposit as part of the pod usage charge: a buy-in similar to a ankful of gas or even a downpayment on an automobile, that can be sequestered if vandalism is detected. Thus, on exiting the pod, the user would wait a minute for the automatic camera inspection, and if damage was detected, the system would print a ticket that the user could challenge on the spot or later if needed. Even simpler, have two employees at each station, one of whom would check pods for damage, the other would provide backup as well as assistance to riders with questions. This wil increase costs, but less so overall than the number of employees needed to run a conventional public transport system. Two, do NOT make this dependent on cellphones... ...or on other technologies whose usage cannot be taken for granted, e.g. requiring people to sign up via a service on their cable TV or internet service provider. It should be possible for any individual to walk into any station, purchase a card for cash (or with an ATM or credit card or a check that would be electronically cleared) and gain access to the system. There is no good reason to tie this to individuals' identities any more than for passengers in conventional automobiles. An encrypted database and the requirement for a court order to search for a given user might be a reasonable compromise (however, that is only as good as the laws, which as we have seen in recent years can be entirely circumvented by a government that cares little for the checks and balances that are essential to a free society and representative democracy). Three, disability access: The stations must have elevators, and ideally escalators as well, or they will be useless to elders and to people who use wheelchairs or other access devices. That means every single one of us at some point in our lives, unless we drop dead before we get older. The pods must be designed for wheelchair access, and the seating must be designed to accommodate people using walkers and suchlike. Also, on 4-person pods, rear-facing seats are a no-no: a known cause of nausea for a plurality of the population. Seating configuration should be "U-shaped," with a full-width rear seat and with seats along the sides (less nausea-inducing) or with seats in front that the riders can choose to lock in a front-facing or rear-facing position. Other: Bathrooms in the stations are an essential, and for personal safety as well as basic privacy should be built as non-gendered, single-person bathrooms with toilet and sink and sufficient space to maneuver a wheelchair. The system plan should charge by mile covered rather than by station stops, thereby allowing people to get off to go to the bathroom in the middle of longer trips, as well as making the system more friendly for trips with multiple stops along the way . Stations might also sell snacks and beverages that could be consumed in a designated seating area, reducing the need of individuals to eat in the pods and potentially make messes. The system might be provided with wireless internet access to enable making better use of travel time. Taking this a little further, a screen in each pod might be used to provide map details of the areas around the points of entry and exit on one's planned trip. That's all for now. I'd use the system if it respected my privacy and didn't require having a cellphone. Now let's see which municipality has the guts to try this first. Comment by G724 - 1 Jul, 2008 10:53 am | ||
| [3] |
That's what the horses used to say back in the days of heavy armor, but then as now, people like their armor. It's not that transportation systems are so hard to design, it's that people's attitudes and aspirations are so hard to change. Are ever higher costs the only means of changing those attitudes and aspirations? Are we to be the only generations in history, both before and after, where huge numbers of people were able to have the cars of their dreams and see the world? If cost is the only viable constraint on keeping us from destroying the planet, either by global warming or war, what an undemocratic and uneaglitarian people we are destined to become. Can't we have our cake and eat it too, without carrying us around on hooks in a landscape cluttered with elevateds? Can't we produce ever lighter cars and planes run on ever greener and inexhaustible energy? Won't we be much better off once we break not just the back of foreign oil, but the back of fossil fuels altogether, by applying genius to, and so that genius can be applied to, actual solutions, rather than to just trying to stretch fossil fuels out longer, with less bang for the buck for most of us and much more bang for the buck for the few who own the fossil fuels? So I ramble, I can't help it, I'm not a genius, but I am smart enough to suspicion that if we had a real revolution, if some significant part of us could be motivated to actually design vehicles with propulsion systems able to be fueled by the abundant energy in wind and sun and water, future generations would be just as free as we have been to wander the streets and highways and byways, and to see the world, without destorying the planet or enriching those who do not like us. Where is H.G. Wells when you need him? Comment by Sonatherun - 13 Oct, 2008 11:47 pm | ||
| |||
Post comment
