template-halli

"Can't you automate
these and let people
sit like in regular cars....?"
(June 15 2005)

People have two reactions after a brief review of the concept: 1) Nice, but make it automated.Make the cars regular sit-up vehicles. On being told that these won't fit under overpasses, it's natural to say, "So, make the pylons a bit higher when there is an overpass." Sounds pretty good. So why are we not seeing such systems ? They are sitting on the drawing boards of companies like Boeing, Bombardier, Siemens, even the mass transit division of Mercedes Benz. They look majestic. Artists have created beautiful renderings of them.. But the floppies and folders in which they sit are dusty, with spider webs. Nobody has brought them to life. Why ? Even if the public purse was not gutted by fiscal irresponsibility and fraud, even if we were in a glowing postwar boom period these systems are not scalable. You can build a few miles. Then you have to stop. It is too expensive, and their construction is highly disruptive. Here is why:
1) The cost of building higher does not follow proportionally the cost of building lower, instead it goes up exponentially,
a) The number of firms building high elevation structures is much smaller, the expertise required is much greater.
b) The type of machinery that is necessary to reach the top portions explodes in price, and in size. You need large cranes. These cranes have a huge base. This means that at least one highway lane has to be closed during construction - but construction will be almost constant: pylon after pylon. Not acceptable. Here a photo of a pylon that would be needed to have Hallitubes clear not only an overpass, but also the trucks with airflow efficiency shields on top of their cabs. This is complex, expensive construction. Note the high crane. It is lowering a metal grid into a concrete post which is already standing. 1/8 of the length is the metal portion hanging out on top of the pylon.
Taken at the 215 construction site in Riverside.
CRANEWITHPYLONFORFLYOVER

c) If you build high, you have to dig deeper for the foundation: This means it cannot be done by mini excavators hired out to low cost, $ 40 per hour firms. Instead you deal with large excavators with a huge turning radius: you get too close a traffic lane again. And, you have to remove all the dirt of the foundation, and where is that truck waiting ? d) If you build high, you have to build much thicker: If you don't, vibration from an earthquake will fell a pylon. Please go up to a medium sized traffic sign or pole with a friend, and make a bet: you can pull it out of the ground. The friend will say no. Press it and let go. Press it and let go. If you get a rhythm going, eventually he will see that it is swinging wider and wider, the base is widening its hole, your friend will ask you to stop and concede the bet. This is why you suddenly have to add to the pylon size: It cannot vibrate and has to support all the additional weight from additional height.

"So why not just raise the pylons only when there is an overpass"? To entice people to ride Hallicarts, they have to be faster than the highway even at normal speeds, so that the Hallitube commuter is always at an advantage. Doubling the tube height every 1-2 miles when there is an overpass makes the system really into a rollercoaster, and alters the wheel/cart stabilization design. Once you really assume that there will be forces lifting the cart from the rails, vehicle weight increases significantly, (grasping secondary wheels) and people at any rate will not go for constant up-and-down. A cart with a set of smooth dual layer wheels would be very heavy to carry.

But lets take an example. If you build at a height getting you across overpasses and getting you across the highest trucks on the overpass ,you are now at the "bridge-building" level height of the Las Vegas Monorail project. This is why monorails are not winding themselves into your neighborhood. Remember that for private investors to pay for such a system, they would like to have earnings within about 3 years, and need to relate construction cost to ride price. Hallitubes were designed with the notion of minimal cost. This is also why at the outset, they cannot be automated. One could certainly use industrial robots to elegantly automate the removal of the carts from the track, and we will surely see this in the future. But it would require more space, a human supervisor to prevent accidents, and it entails the possibility of massive delays during system glitches. As it stand now, Hallitubes are people driven: a station is just a track ending on a moving carpet. We put the burden to remove the cart on you. In exchange, you get some quality time with your kids.

We must prevent white elephant projects at all costs. We need horizontal, not vertical expansion: a cheap system covering the biggest commuting highway segments in each city.

Situp carts = high-elevation=non-scaleability=project-death.
Situp carts = heavy air resistance, much larger motor needed, non-portability, non-overpass fit = slow speed = project death.

Have you ever placed your hand outside of your car window going just 50 mph ? Did you notice how much pressure there was ? Now image a huge square meter surface. Have you ever felt a sailboard sail with only 15mph wind, how quickly it pushed you away ? You have seen the human pedalled speed record vehicles. These speeds would not work on regular racebikes. Instead, the rider sits in an enclosed rocket. Wind resistance makes a huge difference, and more so as speeds get higher. If you ride a heavy motorcyle at about 110 mph, and you turn your helmet, the pressure difference alone from the helmet can cause your bike to change lanes. To go fast and be light so as to be portable, we need you in the recumbent position. Conventional PRT systems have huge cabins. Current plans call for them to go about 40 mph, they are automatic. This will be a long commute, we are offering something different: You have to do more work: but you get your own controllable cart, and you get to zip by the other carts on the highway.

We are looking at a design which would allow the windshield to be placed in an "half-up" position once you have exited from the high-speed environment of the highway and run on a local track. Now you can sit up as the tube diameter and air resistance are less of an issue.

(And of course that could be done) and 2) trains, not Maglev, going for maybe 40 million at most. So , what were the other 600 million for ? You got it. $ 100 million per mile construction cost.