5 ms·

This is an extraordinary claim and I'd like to see some evidence that it's anything like possible.

crimsonalucard 12y ago
Look up energy efficiency per person in cities like NYC versus Los Angeles. Subways , rail based transportation, and public transportation significantly reduce energy usage per person. The problem is that it's impossible to build these systems in the huge suburban sprawls that make up most of the United states.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  The OP is talking about building a third rail for cars. And not just on major transit routes, on every transport route.
- parsnips 12y ago
  So in other words, subways are solutions in search of a problem.
  - krschultz 12y ago
    No, subways are very appropriate in certain situations. It wouldn't make sense to build an 8 lane highway to connect two towns in the backwoods of Alaska, but that doesn't mean 8 lane highways are a solution in search of a problem.
    - parsnips 12y ago
      The point was I'm addressing is this idea that "sprawl" is somehow the problem that needs curing. It reminds me of a young child asking: "If people are so poor in ___________ why don't they move to _______?"
      - CalRobert 12y ago
        Sprawl is problematic for a number of reasons. Environmental - a great deal of land is taking out of either agricultural usage or natural usage for sprawl. Large amounts of water are used on lawns. Economic - Some people can't afford cars or motorcycles, but cars and motorcycles are the only practical way to get around most sprawling cities and towns Safety - Cars are a dangerous way to get around. They kill half a million people a year. They also make roads even more dangerous for other users, like walkers or people on bicycles. Social - Social isolation from a lack of interaction with neighbours is a large problem, and being spread out makes it harder to see other people. This is particularly true if you're elderly, can't drive, and don't have other ways of making social connections. That's just a few. Not every place needs to be the City of London or Manhattan, but there are smarter ways to make suburbs.
Retric 12y ago
Edit: A direct example of what I am suggesting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus I don't see what you think is extraordinary about this. Note the tires on most of these pictures: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus Electrified trolies in mixed use roads are old tech. Some already use hybrid battery backup systems so they don't need constant contact with the power supply. For safety overhead wires are often used, but ground level power supplies that are only on under the vehicle are also safe. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply) Clearly there would be large adoption and scaling issues, but what about this seemed impossible to you? PS: There are also plenty of examples of trains using overhead power at far above highway speeds.
- aetherson 12y ago
  Things that seem impossible to me: * Having a many lane, many cars overtaking each other system. I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. * The distances involved. I don't really know why conventional trains that cover more than a few dozen miles are all energy-on-the-train rather than third-rail, but I know they are. And absent other considerations, I assume there's probably a sound reason for this. * This quote from wikipedia: > However, because third rail systems present electric shock > hazards close to the ground, high voltages (above 1,500 V) > are not considered safe. A very high current must therefore > be used to transfer adequate power, resulting in high > resistive losses, and requiring relatively closely spaced > feed points (electrical substations). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadvantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadva... * And of course just the overall scale.
  - Retric 12y ago
    I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. Look at that ground level system it's designed for mix use in the middle of city traffic. Basically you have a sequence of metal contact plates in the ground to feed power to a passing vehicle. You can even make the plates wider to accommodate less accurate drivers. The trick is there only powered when a designated vehicle crosses over them. This might seem like an issue but we can switch power vary quickly as in it could work at 600 mph not just 60 mph. It's true that it would be unsafe to be under a vehicle, but that's more or less already true. As to passing, I think you would want a minimum 40mile range while not connected to the system so swapping lanes would generally be a minor issue. And there is no coupling / decoupling as it's all touch contact anyway. * The distances involved... There are plenty of long electric runs. At most it's just a factor of traffic levels. Long runs tend to get less traffic so electrifying them is less cost effective. "In 2006, 240,000 km (25% by length) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction." 3rd rail systems are just one path, they work well in subways that don't have to worry about people. I don't think an actual 3rd rail would work for cars. But, inductive coupling or 2nd generation ground level system would be safe for people to walk on or even touch and not an eye sore. The downside would be increased cost vs the cheaper wire systems. At to cost and scale. Gas costs more than 10x what electricity costs right now so there is ~368.51 million gallons / day * ~(pre tax 1.5$ per gallon) * .9 = ~1/2 billion per day wasted right now. Just charge 75c/kwh for in road electricity and you can fund rapid expansion while saving drivers money. Remember, just electrifying things for a city wide buss system generally saves money so break even is ~100 trips per day. Add more traffic and the savings would be ridiculously huge.

Look up energy efficiency per person in cities like NYC versus Los Angeles. Subways , rail based transportation, and public transportation significantly reduce energy usage per person. The problem is that it's impossible to build these systems in the huge suburban sprawls that make up most of the United states.

maxerickson 12y ago
The OP is talking about building a third rail for cars. And not just on major transit routes, on every transport route.
parsnips 12y ago
So in other words, subways are solutions in search of a problem.
- krschultz 12y ago
  No, subways are very appropriate in certain situations. It wouldn't make sense to build an 8 lane highway to connect two towns in the backwoods of Alaska, but that doesn't mean 8 lane highways are a solution in search of a problem.
  - parsnips 12y ago
    The point was I'm addressing is this idea that "sprawl" is somehow the problem that needs curing. It reminds me of a young child asking: "If people are so poor in ___________ why don't they move to _______?"
    - CalRobert 12y ago
      Sprawl is problematic for a number of reasons. Environmental - a great deal of land is taking out of either agricultural usage or natural usage for sprawl. Large amounts of water are used on lawns. Economic - Some people can't afford cars or motorcycles, but cars and motorcycles are the only practical way to get around most sprawling cities and towns Safety - Cars are a dangerous way to get around. They kill half a million people a year. They also make roads even more dangerous for other users, like walkers or people on bicycles. Social - Social isolation from a lack of interaction with neighbours is a large problem, and being spread out makes it harder to see other people. This is particularly true if you're elderly, can't drive, and don't have other ways of making social connections. That's just a few. Not every place needs to be the City of London or Manhattan, but there are smarter ways to make suburbs.

Retric 12y ago

Edit: A direct example of what I am suggesting http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-mode_bus I don't see what you think is extraordinary about this. Note the tires on most of these pictures: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus Electrified trolies in mixed use roads are old tech. Some already use hybrid battery backup systems so they don't need constant contact with the power supply. For safety overhead wires are often used, but ground level power supplies that are only on under the vehicle are also safe. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-level_power_supply) Clearly there would be large adoption and scaling issues, but what about this seemed impossible to you? PS: There are also plenty of examples of trains using overhead power at far above highway speeds.

aetherson 12y ago
Things that seem impossible to me: * Having a many lane, many cars overtaking each other system. I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. * The distances involved. I don't really know why conventional trains that cover more than a few dozen miles are all energy-on-the-train rather than third-rail, but I know they are. And absent other considerations, I assume there's probably a sound reason for this. * This quote from wikipedia: > However, because third rail systems present electric shock > hazards close to the ground, high voltages (above 1,500 V) > are not considered safe. A very high current must therefore > be used to transfer adequate power, resulting in high > resistive losses, and requiring relatively closely spaced > feed points (electrical substations). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadvantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadva... * And of course just the overall scale.
- Retric 12y ago
  I don't see mechanically how you'd make a system in which cars could, at 70 mph, go from one rail to another in order to pass. Look at that ground level system it's designed for mix use in the middle of city traffic. Basically you have a sequence of metal contact plates in the ground to feed power to a passing vehicle. You can even make the plates wider to accommodate less accurate drivers. The trick is there only powered when a designated vehicle crosses over them. This might seem like an issue but we can switch power vary quickly as in it could work at 600 mph not just 60 mph. It's true that it would be unsafe to be under a vehicle, but that's more or less already true. As to passing, I think you would want a minimum 40mile range while not connected to the system so swapping lanes would generally be a minor issue. And there is no coupling / decoupling as it's all touch contact anyway. * The distances involved... There are plenty of long electric runs. At most it's just a factor of traffic levels. Long runs tend to get less traffic so electrifying them is less cost effective. "In 2006, 240,000 km (25% by length) of the world rail network was electrified and 50% of all rail transport was carried by electric traction." 3rd rail systems are just one path, they work well in subways that don't have to worry about people. I don't think an actual 3rd rail would work for cars. But, inductive coupling or 2nd generation ground level system would be safe for people to walk on or even touch and not an eye sore. The downside would be increased cost vs the cheaper wire systems. At to cost and scale. Gas costs more than 10x what electricity costs right now so there is ~368.51 million gallons / day * ~(pre tax 1.5$ per gallon) * .9 = ~1/2 billion per day wasted right now. Just charge 75c/kwh for in road electricity and you can fund rapid expansion while saving drivers money. Remember, just electrifying things for a city wide buss system generally saves money so break even is ~100 trips per day. Add more traffic and the savings would be ridiculously huge.