Prior Art (Comparative Section) of the Hallitube System (Patent Pending)
(Maizlish 2004)
|
Prior Art (Comparative Section) of the Hallitube System (Patent Pending) (Maizlish 2004) |
Related Patents and Applications and Commentary
(Prior Art) 
These were obtained by searching separately in the applications and existing patents databases under the terms 1) Mass transit 2) Public transit 3) Public transportation, 4) Rapid transit and 5) Mass transportation. Most items available for review in the PTO database center on monorails, and some employ hybrid vehicles capable of rail and road use, or road and monorail use. One system proposes to transport cars on conveyors. All tend toward high-complexity and high automation levels, requiring significant development and implementation costs. All the systems reviewed here are interesting and with a potential for congestion reduction, but silence has come to surround them. None dared to segregate a user population or impose sharp rules on the user population to keep dimension and complexity of design to a minimum. These systems were never constructed because they tried to be everything to everybody, and hence could not be integrated conveniently into the infrastructure. For most of them, it seems as though the designers had to get by corporate evaluation committees, restricting aggressive new approaches with unorthodox elements. Hamy (1994) proposes a monorail variant. Bolger (1992) is based on service-request dispatched cabin units. Raytheons PTR system uses tall cabins moving on a monorail. Forsyth et al (1976) suggests a transit system using small vehicles grouped together, but operating on highways or surface streets. Pugin (2001) prefers a cable way system, elegant in that it does not use road space, but not a high-speed approach. Esposito (2002) has a road/rail hybrid proposal. Failsal (2001) has come up with a tunnel system to dispatch packages from house to house. Christensen/O'Connor (1999) propose a dual-mode transport system also for use on roadways. Li Zhengzhong (1998) uses a multipassenger unit monorail system that is suspended, with holding tracks for unoccupied vehicles rather than a storage system as in the present application. Li's system is also intended for cargo transport, and is an improvement over PRT 2000 as he has given more thought to the vehicle accumulation problems, but his stations are much larger, with large vehicle spacing gaps. Park, Tae Gin, (2001) has a guideway transit system, which uses large turning loops to dissipate speed when the medium sized egg-shaped vehicles come off his railroad, which are equipped with LED pads and menus, and include provisions for on-board batteries. The user in these vehicles is far above the rail surface, as much as a meter+ based on his diagrams, This system aims at all types of passenger with a high degree of automation and central control system. Lamb (2003) has a magnetically levitated vehicle with magnets only emplaced at the sides, however, still using a rail, not as envisaged in the Phase II portion of the Hallitube project. His propulsion is based on a cart-attached wheel, somewhat contradicting the whole notion of a hovering platform. Rajaram (2004) proposes a suspended coach system, Fox(2004) suggest chaining vehicles on highways for high speed. Lund (2003) constructs guideways for large vehicles carrying passenger cars. Gustafson (2003) proposes a hybrid transit access corridor, appearing to have a minisubway running below a center tram track on a highway. Saunders (2003) also wants elevated transit vehicles, which cross intersections w.o. the elevated curbway and are bus-sized wagons. Serrano (2002) discloses an autonomous transport system, where people are standing upright in a cabin along a guideway, and the gondola rotates on an axis. Ross (2002) demonstrates a roadway powered electric system having automated guidance and dispatch features, again like a electric van. Beck (2002) for Daimler, proposes a vehicle composed of a removable carseat. Fliege (1999) concentrates on circuitry for a non-rail vehicle electrically powered. Culbertson (1999) really centers on dispatch technologies. Lund (again) 1997 proposes in 85 pages a complex patent with larger units also carrying freight. Young (1995) uses road-based steerable electric vehicles receiving power from above. Geldbaugh (1995) has an infrastructure-integrated system which comes closer to what is being submitted here. He too seeks to direct vehicles below overpasses, but his infrastructure size requires him to alter vehicle traffic flow such that in the lane which shares his track, trucks may not operate, which he indicates in his diagram. He seats multiple persons per car, besides, rather than behind each other. His median running versions are quite large, in terms of upright seated head-space. His single person vehicle also rises very high from the lower portion of the track, the rails are more than a meter below the beltline of the driver, which causes scaling problems in adding such structures on top of each other, a vital aspect of the Hallitube project. His vehicles almost have the diameter of the cars shown below on the highway. Romine (1994) shows another combined vehicle with rail and road functionality, but also for transporting loads. Barrat (1993) proposes another piggybacking system which can quit guideways. Forster of Daimler Benz (1986) uses a system in which bus sized vehicles assemble into trains. Benke (1982) would have us use a reservation system for private cars. Mandross (1982) proposes a guideway system for cargo moved by compressed air. Walters (1978) has a trafficway for self-propelled vehicles which however runs at ground level. Szente-Miklausky (1976) has a suspended transit system, egg shaped, from a monorail. Richards (2003) proposes a high-speed system which however is car sized, though elevated. Lamoroux (2003) gives us a high-speed cable car system (Aerobus International) Svensson (2003) demonstrates a support structure for a elevated vehicle guideway consisting of a beam holding two adjacent tracks, dissimilar to this design. Kaufman (2002) builds a vast concrete structure appearing to hold multiple tracks. De Lorean (1994) wants us to sit back to back in a rotary drive propelled system with a vacuum source. Roberts (1979) has a overhead track monorail. Nardozzi in 1977 proposes water as a surface medium in a tunnel. Tyus (1977) proposes a tunnelled four-seater. Hamada for Nissan (1977) shares a dual-mode vehicle, large. Sullivan (1976) gives us a monorail, elevated, and Bossi (1976) demonstrates vehicles based on a rapidly rechargeable battery. Klein (76) proposes hydroplaning on a layer of liquid, which we find quite attractive and are not excluding as an embodiment of the Hallitube patent, though our propulsion will be different. Chapman (2004) applies for a novel way of monorail suspension. Roanjery (2004) applies for a dual use system (road/rail). Stiles has applied for a rail transport system for carrying vehicles, (2002) . McCray (2002) applies for an elevated dual track system held by a single pylon and extensive loops to process entry and exit. Juarez(1999) proposes a beltway with two external belts for footpassenger accessing, somewhat resembling an aspect of the feeder-tape feature submitted in this application, with the difference that he seeks to accelerate the passengers only from one belt to another, whereas in the present application passengers may be moved over kilometer distances on 4 consecutive belts at speeds up to 35 mph after having undergone training, with a unique structure to deal with the difficulty of centrifugal force dissipation during turns. Why have we not seen such hybrid systems, why are monorails not a solution to the congestion problem ? Hybrid rail/road systems assume that the public will dare to purchase a vehicle the capability of which is dependent on availabilitiy of a largely untested rail structure in the vicinity of the buyer. What if the buyer has to move somewhere else ? He is stuck with a "local" car which can only be sold in areas near the rail structure. But the bigger issue is the general problem that plagues light-rail and any structure using a rail system that does not use an existing railroad line: a land acquisition/litigation cost that totals 41 million dollars per mile, although some vicinities have done much better due to the ability to convert existing normal rail lines into a city transit system, such as San Diego's Siemens tram system. Monorails, though they look elegant and have been built since the 60's have high pricetags: Las Vegas paid $ 665 million for a system just a few miles long. In reviewing other patents, and the people mover systems of the larger vendors, such as Boeing, Bombardier, Siemens, Breda, Kinki-Sharyo, it becomes clear that we have become stuck on the notion of improving something that has been around since almost 2 centuries: basic large railroad structures, with vehicles costing typically $ 1 milion each and holding 50 seated and a total of 100-150 passengers. Variations of this concept inevitably involve another high-structure and automated environment. Nobody is willing to address the participation issue: The US is a class-based society, with haves and havenots, and the latter are to be found on public transit systems. You are locked in with them briefly when you ride a bus or tram. They speak to themselves, or may suddenly address you, they may ask you for money, and they may smell bad, and your seat may transfer these smells to you. To this must be added the recent concerns about terrorism. The upshot is that people prefer to control the environment in which they commute or travel, and are willing to sacrifice significant time in congestion rather than face public transit. To successfully implement a novel, heavy-use public transit system then, these are necessary conditions: 1) There has to be a user-selection process excluding people who make travel unpleasant for anyone. 2) This can only be achieved by building a private system, but 3) because the costs are large, the space for the system cannot be purchased or leased, leaving only the space above highways and streets, making it a concession, and objections to this have to be met in the same way a ski resort operating in national parks answers objection: it is a useful mixing of public land and private values. Finally, 4) the rider has to be given a measure of independence, perhaps his own vehicle, and the cleanliness of his use-space has to be guaranteed. Taken together, these necessary conditions require a recumbent rider position, so that the minimally-sized structure can fit below underpasses and has little air-resistance for a small motor, to make it competitive with highway speeds. But perhaps most unusual, and novel compared to other transit systems is the high level of user responsibility, which other systems try to avoid by massive automation, drastically increasing planning and production costs. The extensive user training required as part of this patent allows significant shortcuts in the automation level, and avoids conductors and administrative bureaucracies which tend to be unionized and very costly. Finally, novel is also the concept of almost complete avoidance of stations in lieu of localized termination points with cart storage quantities adjusted to local demand. Non-vehicle passenger transport systems have been stuck since the inventions of the escalating stairs and the airport walkways in what may be called "separated-slow-metal-cubes" stage. With user training and provisions for accidental falls, a beltway system as we describe here can be built, moving people without vehicles at high-speeds. |
| A word needs to be said about the patentability
of rail features: Many of the applications and patents reviewed here feature
a "local track separated from an express main track". This is a feature
which has been in use since the 19th century, and should not be brought
up in patent applications, because it is inherent in a fixed system, accordingly,
we have no separate clause for it. Another item found in many mass transit
applications is the use of barcodes to identify vehicles. Barcodes are used
everywhere, in every single industrial inventory system, we use them too,
and feel they are as patentable as the concept of using metal. To conclude the comparative analysis section: The uniqueness of the Hallitube application relies on absolute cart miniaturization and portability, shown in no prior art, which means a collapse in the overall cost of accompanying infrastructure and vehicle turnaround. This critical change makes the system viable and very fast, excludes some, but clears the highway for those. The small size means that inidivual residential homes in a neighborhood can store about 100 carts, not available in any of the above systems. Nature of the System A minimalist approach to high-throughput, semi-public mass transit, this system allows the user individual travel inside tubes by use of an elongated, streamlined cart moving at high speeds with the rider in a recumbent position. Due to the low weight of the rail support structure, (which is not monorail-based as such system do not support small vehicles at high speeds because of wheel and balance issues) separate stations and turning yards are not necessary as route terminations end typically in dedicated apartments, homes or company buildings as the system is specifically aimed at the commuter. Unlike lightrail, this system principally does not require the new allocation of land, but operates as a concession in the space above public highways much in the same way as ski resorts operate on public parkland. With a recumbent position of the rider, multiple tubes can be stacked below overpasses, therefore not requiring the construction of large structures to raise the system above such obstacles, as is the case with other monrail and light-rail systems of larger size. As the user needs some of the same skills as a train-conductor, and requires special evacuation training due to the constrained space within which the system operates, riders need to take lessons just as in acquiring the skills for automotive operations. The system itself is locally owned with general supervisory authority maintained by the Hallitube corporation. The Hallicart has 8 wheels with a rail-hugging orientation also found on roller coasters. It has 3 wheels on the side allowing the cart to be wheeled away while holding it like a briefcase. The pantograph, which receives electricity from the third rail, is in two designs either at the side or the bottom of the cart. Having taken a cart from a rack, or from another arriving rider, the rider enters the cart, which resembles a streetluge with a fairing, by lifting a translucent plexiglass hood to the full upright position. In a procedure that will take less than 15 seconds, he/she settles into the cart, and brings the fairing down to either of two positions, sitting upright for transit to nearby stations in city use, or reclining completely, closing the hood above. The sloped exit area leads the cart from a carpet surface onto the rail system. He is now propelled rapidly out of the station, and may join a series of riders waiting at a light with a cushion barrier to gain access to the high-speed track. The cart is equipped with compressible, possibly inflated streamlined cushions held by a mesh at the front and back, as during congested conditions inside the tube contact between carts is not unusual. A single tube added to a two lane highway can deploy a rider about every 15-20 seconds with a well-trained user population, and is expected to reduce commuting traffic by about 30 %. This percentage reduction has been demonstrated by traffic research to result in a significant increase of vehicle speed, therefore bringing vast benefits to the non-hallitube commuting populations, as well increasing the accuracy of commercial deliveries and reducing the congestive effects of accidents on the highway system. The key benefit of the system is that the commuter can take the system to his actual endpoint destination, as a corporate endpoint has perhaps 50-80 expected users, and thus requires relatively little space for cart storage under our innovative ceiling/rack/wall based storage system. The key failing of mass transit has always been the need to switch between different transport structures to reach a final destination, with a long walk forcibly included. This sytem, with some corporate support, can with its small size avoid this and make a drastic reduction in the years we spend per lifetime waiting in cars. The ususal "not in my backyard" phenomenon is avoided by integrating the tubes and pylons visually with neighborhood colors, and using suspension wires frequently instead of pylons. The key notion of the system is to minimize the need for central administration and control, and the need for great capital expenditures, by putting users in charge and observing their behavior carefully. History of the System Named after Hallidie, the inventor of the S.F. cablecar, Hallitubes are a natural step in the general trend toward miniaturization. Public transit systems started out large by nature due to an inability to extract high performance from small engines, thereby resulting in the creation of massively large and expensive infrastructures. This system is the first which combines features of the luge, and gocart together with aspects of rail systems and creates an interface between the two. Due to the lightness of the cart, sections of the system may operate without a motor, with the rider reaching out toward a set of wires, which increment in speed. The improvements in electro motors will make this feature increasingly less necessary. Phase II of the system will use magnets instead of wheels for a frictionless cart ride with air resistance being the only factor slowing the carts, and even directional stabilization coming from magnets, requiring however, a careful distribution of rider weight. |