|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jul 01, 2007 2:44 pm |
|
re: re: re: re: re: re: Breakthrough Li-Ion battery - Hybrid to Full Electric conversion |
Ken Hilving
| |
You make some good points, but I think the technical ones have been addressed.
Keep in mind that the monorail approach I suggested is only one segment of a system. The monorail itself could be built within the right of ways of existing highways and major roads without taking those out of service. It could operate within the current US Interstate Highway paths for a nationwide monorail grid. This is a pretty significant range.
The suggestion is personal transportation that rides such a monorail system. The range when not on the monorails would be (using the example pickup truck) 65 miles. Now I believe that a lighter vehicle would be more practical, so the range would be extended. Let's say 100 miles from the monorail network. If you take a map of the US Interstate Highway system, and shade an area 100 miles from either side, you get an idea of the range possible without needing to recharge. Remember, while riding the monorail network there is no need for powering the personal transportation.
Powering the monorail adds some vulnerability to power grid problems. If the vehicles are suspended below the monorail then the top surface could hold solar panels. Even keeping within the footprint of the monorail, that is some significant coverage. I don't know how much power is needed, but this would certainly add to the reliability and resiliency against power outages. In addition to solar, the monorail supports can be extended for wind turbines.
Network design takes into consideration alternate routes and reduction in single points of failure. Most current mass transit systems do not provide this. The monorail approach will have far fewer "accidents" since all traffic moves at a common speed and direction, and does not share space with other traffic modes or pedestrians, and is system rather than driver controlled. The risk becomes higher at the sidings where the personal vehicles enter and exit the monorail for independent driver operation. It would be on par with current vehicle traffic.
The siding approach allows for many more exits and entrances than traditional mass transit. In fact, it could replicate today's highway exit and entrance points. This addresses flexibility and fast turnaround for the commuters. Traffic delays are more driver than congestion related. By taking the driver out of the loop while on the monorail, monorail traffic flows at a consistent rate. Add load balancing and route selection used by telecommunications networks, and even congestion at points of egress and ingress are vastly improved. The low latency issue does not exist. The monorail traffic will travel easily above current highway speeds.
A monorail is less vulnerable to most natural hazards compared to current road travel. Visibility issues - night, fog, rain, snow - aren't applicable. Traveling above the ground, the impact of snow, ice, and heavy rain is reduced and is a system rather than a vehicle issue. High winds might pose a greater hazard to monorail than road traffic, but I don't know this to be a fact. Overall, weather and time of day will have far less impact on the safety and speed of monorail traffic than on road traffic.
The traveler controls when he travels, where he enters, where he exits, and might even have some control over his choice of routes. None of the independence currently available to today's drivers is compromised.
Range in the discussion has been looked at only with a single charge. The battery that started the discussion claims a 10 minute charge time. This is competitive with refueling a car. Both are at risk to power outages, by the way. Recharging stations would become a common capability at current gas stations simply due to customer demand, but initially incentives might be useful. This would double the range away from the monorails to 200 miles on either side. I haven't checked, but that covers a whole lot of the US. If there are charging stations midway between monorail corridors, I do believe the coverage will be close to 90 percent of the US.
A final thought on the monorail vehicle. If instead of a specific vehicle, it is a vehicle carrier, than most current personal vehicles could use the monorail network. This approach could reduce commute times, congestion, and pollution while monorail specific vehicles are being developed. The move becomes evolutionary instead of revolutionary, and individuals are able to recoup their current investments. Over time, most will move to the monorail specific vehicles as cost and prestige based decision. We all get an immediate gain from the monorails.
Monorails can also support the vehicle less commuters. A traditional monorail passenger car, using specific sidings as stations, can coexist with this approach. Likewise, monorail taxis are possible. Communities could also choose to provide bicycles to commuters for use when off the monorail. Copenhagen is an example of a city where bicycles are made available to city visitors.
Overall scalability of pavement is actually less than that of monorails. In a new corridor, the size of right away required is smaller for monorails. The environmental disruption is also less, whether we are considering natural or urban environments. Existing technology, most of it low tech and long standing, is used.
_____
The social issues with mass transit workers is interesting. Since the monorail network would more closely resemble the Internet than current mass transit, I think it is a better model for the impact of striking workers. Labor unrest is certainly possible, but would be far less a threat than it is with light rail and bus systems. Private Reply to Ken Hilving (new win) |
|
| |
|
