Robocabs Coming to Europe 176
Roland Piquepaille writes "Almost all of us can recall both good and poor memories of taxi rides when we arrived in a city we didn't know. This is why a short article from Spiegel Online, 'Bringing Robot Transportation to Europe,' caught my eye this morning. It briefly describes the European 'CityMobil' project which involves 28 partners in 10 countries at a cost of €40 million. This project plans to eliminate city drivers and three trial sites have already been selected. For example, in 2008, Terminal 5 in London's Heathrow airport will be connected to the car park by driverless electric cars along a 4-kilometer track. Read more for additional pictures and references about this project to make the roads in Europe's cities more efficient."
Robo-what? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
haha it is true! (Score:4, Funny)
I totally remember something like this! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"I'm sorry, could you please restate your desination!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The door opens... you get in." *rolls eyes*
Re: (Score:2)
Johnny Cab [ytmnd.com]
Arnold (Score:2)
"[...] driverless electric cars along a 4-kilometer track."
How is this different than EWR's monorail or other systems? I fail to see how this is a true automated cab system.
Re: (Score:2)
You're in a Johnny Cab ... (Score:2)
The difference is that it transports *individuals* (Score:2)
Transporting individuals means:
You can go directly or nearly directly to your destination.
You do not have to stop at intermediate stations to let people on and off.
You do not have to get out and change to different lines.
The transport pods wait for you, they don't run to a schedule so you don't have to wait at a station.
Being a form of off road transport means that:
It can be non stop.
There are no
Re: (Score:2)
You are quite correct that there is a substantial infrastructure in
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Phileas is the name of a new public transport system which is developed and built in Eindhoven (the Netherlands) by APTS. It is an electrically driven road vehicle with properties of a bus, tram or metro system. It allows several driving modes found in these vehicles:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Late at night, when the Park is closing down, visitors are shuttled back to their parking lots to go to their cars and go home.
Aware that everyone wants to go home now, the Pilots really punch the throttle on the monorails to get that accomplished.
Hang on to your hat! They'll show you what these babies can really do!
Great fun for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
The future is here (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The past is here, only more intimate. (Score:3, Informative)
Show me a robo version that can take me from any point in the city to any address in a forth-ring suburb and I'll be impressed. A 4 Km track is no different than two subway stops in any city.
Re:The past is here, only more intimate. (Score:4, Insightful)
- Efficient routing around disasters, with breakdown detection to prevent a single system failure from breaking the entire network.
- Some sort of weight detection system to ensure that people do not leave anything on the vehicles (bags, bombs, etc). Normally a driver would point these things out but automated systems lack that ability.
- Some sort of 'digital nose' type device to detect the vehicles which have stink bombs, vomit, and whatever other lovely smells that can be accrued by frequent usage in a densely populated area, and allow the vehicles to be removed from service and cleaned instantly.
- Decent integration with pedestrians. They need to be able to go as fast as possible so that fewer vehicles are needed, but must not clog up roads for traffic and pedestrians. Ideally some sort of sunken road could be used where appropriate perhaps, allowing large boulevards at ground level, and enabling their usage in pedestrianised areas.
- Easy to use for disabled people.
- Free or cheaper than driving a car or taking a bus.
- Must run at all hours, not be limited like public transport is, as this encourages people to either stumble around cities drunk after clubs close, or sometimes risk driving home.
That is all that I can think of right now, anyone got any others? A private public-transport would be very welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect this to be fairly easy. Many breakdowns could be avoided with on-board sensors which could detect problems, and automatically send the vehicle to a maintenance point after dropping off the passenger. In cases when tracks are offline (a broken-down vehicle, the track needs maintenance, etc) because there's redundancy in the rail system it should be easy to ro
Packet Networks (Score:2)
Ev
GPS - Eh? (Score:2)
GPS tends to be a non-starter in subways or any covered area
Re: (Score:2)
NYC subways are outdoors quite a bit, outside Manhattan. Under cover they can use other location tech.
The subways should use realtime location data anyway, so we can look at realtime maps and ETA estimates to plan our trips.
Sounds complex (Score:2)
The dutch rail network has some lines wich split at a point so that the first half of the train goes in one direction and the last half in another. It is on a couple of lines, ALWAYS happens and is very clearly announded and printed on the signs. And each and every ride people get it wrong. Not every day, every single ride. Can you imagine the mess
Re: (Score:2)
Profitability of public transport (Score:2)
I disagree. I agree that the system(or one based on the same principles) could as you say make more efficient use of the rail space and make a huge difference to traffic congestion. But... It should be privately financed, it's one of the few public transport systems which can be profitable.
Almost all existing forms of public transport are heavily subsidised by
Re: (Score:2)
There's room for only one rail system. It's a "natural monopoly", which is always best run by a government accountable to the people. Maybe we could try competing car systems, something like the taxi fleets on the ci
Rail is just one of many forms of transport (Score:2)
Alternatives include buses, taxis, trams, private automobiles, bicycles, motorcycles, prt and feet. Subsidising rail simply reduces the investment the competition will make in their s
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually these packet cars should convince us to automate roada taxis. The city should sti
Re: (Score:2)
I agreed with you on the rails being a natural monopoly if taken out of the wider context of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
It was the first automated line of Paris Métro. Before being put into commercial service, it was known by its project name, Meteor, an acronym of Métro Est-Ouest Rapide.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Along a track? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
With sufficient research ( and government grants) scienctists hope to invent something they call a "trolley," although I think the idea is perhaps too futuristic and we aren't ready for it.
KFG
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that some cities have automated trains and/or subways, but in NYC the subways still have drivers and (I'm giggling) conductors. Yes, people who stare out the side of the train and close the doors... gotta love unions. Door closing technology will someday improve to where it is safe enough to replace the manual switch, I guess. Then maybe they'll be able to get rid of elevator operators, too. :)
The funny thing is, the trains operated by Port Authority at JFK and Newark airports are 100% automated. Th
Re: (Score:3)
Already done (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Take age old idea.
2) Do the same thing only with added benefit of key words.
3) Sell it as a new idea
4) Get fools to buy it.
5) PROFIT!!
Yeah, that's right, no "?????" step here.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For God's sake, you didn't have to even have to RTFA. All you had to do was read the summary:
I don't know where you live, but I haven't seen many trollies, cable-cars, buses, cabs, trains, or really any vehicles that are driver-
Re:Already done (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't know where you live
For the rest this topic is IMHO pretty much crap, because a taxi brings you from anyware to anyware and even more from door to door. Don't think that these pilot projects are getting anyware close to that. What most airports need is a railway connection with the downtown they belong to. But because all around the world the taxi operators (not the drivers but the license holders) are one big mafia with good connections into local politics, that hardly happens anywhere.
Yes, I know the many exceptions (Amsterdam, Tokio, Heathrow), but I know 10x more cities (Singapore, Toronto, La Guardia, Denver, Vancouver, Mexico City, etc.) where you can absolutely forget it to have decent public transport from the airport to city center. In many of those cities a subway/metro/lightrail system comes even close to the airport, but just doesn't bridge the gap of "the last mile".
Re: (Score:2)
ATC Re:Already done (Score:2)
Well, you don't need driverless trains for that. Most modern railways, trams etc use automatic train control that will bring trains to a halt if there is a red signal (or another train on the same control section etc etc). Of course these systems have problems braking for people, cars, deers and other obstacles that don't have transponders which is why you still require driv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been on a bus lately...
The fact that it moves *individuals* is crucial (Score:2)
If you move a group of people.
The vehicle has to be big. It has to be heavy.
The underlying infrastructure to handle the vehicle has to be big, heavy and expensive.
The vehicle has to run along an average route, it can't go direct to your destination. You almost certainly will have to change vehicles to get to your destination.
The vehicle has to run to a schedule which means you have to wait for it.
The vehicle has to stop
counterpoint (Score:2)
people movers can hold 1-5 and go every thirty seconds, and change destinations on the fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Only with high occupancy, close to 100% full. That only happens during peak periods. During other times the costs and inefficiency of accelerating and decelerating a large heavy and nearly empty vehicle are substantial, never mind the environmental cost of the rail infrastructure. Because of this the schedule has to be set to minimise the losses outwith peak periods, making the system even less desirable. And in an
Re: (Score:2)
A more insightful article.. (Score:5, Informative)
The difference for passengers will be not so much the journey time - which will be about four minutes - but how long they have to wait. Instead of huddling under a shelter for as long as 20 minutes as they currently do waiting for a bus, the pod will be at most a minute away.
Re: (Score:2)
The performance of the system depends on the numbers of pods and the numbers of berths in the stations. If there aren't enough pods, buy some more. The nice thing is that the incremental cost of a pod is a fraction of that of a bus.
In reality people have to wait for their luggage, go to the loo, go have a coffee, take a taxi, get picked up or take the train to the city centre. They rarely go
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, it's not too bad. It depends on the size of the system and number of cars, and the number of ports available for loading. It can beat typical shuttles fairly easily, though of course there will be wait times. Airports don't actually seem that bad; there's enough steps involved that there's always a stream of people moving about, the people from one plane are quic
Rapid Urban Flexible (RUF) is better (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Rapid Urban Flexible (RUF) is better (Score:4, Informative)
Cars, in turn, have to have all the same complexity they already have, and add the control systems for the tracks as well as seperate track wheels. Each car must still have a licensed and insured driver. Each car is going to have to park somewhere, which is not free [planning.org]. Capital costs of the RUF system are carried in part by private users, but only one of the smallest portions -- the largest portion of capital cost goes into creating the rail infrastructure.
PRT's advantages have to do with its scope. The rail required for PRT vehicles is substantially easier to build, install, and maintain than typical rail, because the load is so much less. Elevated rails carrying tens of tons of weight must be large and bulky, and are very expensive to construct. But because the vehicles on a PRT are required in numbers relative to the number of riders, and wear out relative to how many passenger-miles they go, the cost is directly related to the fare income, so that cost is one of the smallest hurdles for the system compared to the rail infrastructure. PRT is optimized for decreasing the cost of that infrastructure.
Re: (Score:2)
I've proposed to him that he also might be able to find a city with high property values reasonably close to an area with cheap land. Build a RUF guideway from there into
New Face on Old Idea (Score:2)
This is just a old transportation with a new spin. It's not an automated cab. it's just a smaller train.
Cabs do curb side service from your current location to your destination. Besides, I am glad cab drivers are safe and able to keep their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Or did I miss something ?
Hmm... (Score:2, Redundant)
It's Called PRT (Score:3, Informative)
We don't need robots - we need shopping-cart taxis (Score:5, Interesting)
What we need are really cheap taxis that people can rent with a credit or debit card, drive a short distance, and pretty much just jump out and leave them. They need to be about as cheap as shopping carts - and even designed to fold up like shopping carts, so they can be racked conveniently in a compact space.
You'd probably rent the right to keep one at home over-night. You'd drive it a mile or two on surburban streets to a bus or lightrail terminal, where you'd rack it and get your "taxicard" back. Ride the transit, get off within a mile or two of where you need to be. Grab another taxi-cart, insert your taxicard, drive to your final destination. Rack it up with dozens or hundreds of others in the taxicart stall, and get your taxicard back again.
Reverse that, when going home. Each Taxicart stand would have extra taxicarts, and a computer system would note when a stand runs out completely, so that a couple of extras could quickly be delivered there. In the rare case that you arrive somewhere with an empty taxicart rack, you can punch a button to have one delivered, and get a credit for your inconvenience of having to wait.
The taxicart would be all electric, with maybe a 15 mile range, probably about 25mph maximum speed. It would re-charge while racked up. It'd also have a small tank of water - in the summer that'd be frozen (while on the rack) to provide maybe half an hour's air conditioning. In the winter, it'd be heated, for about the same duration of heat.
It'd be computer tracked with wireless and GPS - so the central computer could track units that get stalled. If you need to go somewhere without a rack, and leave the cart there, you could punch a button and pay to have it picked up - trucks would drive around just for that purpose - and again get your taxicard back. It'd have a plug too, so you could charge it up if necessary.
Don't need that either (Score:2, Insightful)
You could get by with one tenth the n
Re:Don't need that either (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd have exactly the same number of cars on the road as you have now.
Unless you increase the number of passengers per vehicle, or decrease the number of powered trips (bicycles/feet), it would be the same number of trips here and there. There might be fewer vehicles in total circulation, but the number in motion at any one time would be the same. There would, of course, be fewer sitting around in driveways and parking lots.
You could reduce te number of cars sold every year by a factor of ten.
Wear and tear. If you and 9 other people in your neighborhood all used one car, how long would it last at 200,000 miles per year?
Who mediates when all 10 of you need to get to work at the same time, in different places?
They could mostly be electric, thus quieter and centralizing the smog makers at power plants.
This has zero to do with power source. Electric could happen with or without robocars.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed except for:
If the payoff for an electric car is 5 years for a private owner, and the public cars are used 10x more, then the payoff for the public cars would be more like 6 months... It might be a no-brainer to go electric with a 6-month payoff.
Re: (Score:2)
You could actually have less cars on the road at any one time, though 1/10 is clearly an attempt to say 1/10 as many cars total, as most cars are just parked, not being used. Parked cars take up a lot of valuable space, not to mention an unused capital investment, so it is useful to reduce total numbers.
It's likely that there would also be less cars on the roa
Re: (Score:2)
You need to do your sums. There would be just as many people going to exactly the same destinations as before, so there would be no reduction in traffic.
Your system would mean there would be a massive shortage during rush hour (and no reduction of congestion), and a massive surplus during quiet times.
In fact you would be ADDING to the traffic: as well as the usual journeys, you now have empty taxis going back and forth to pick people up.
Re:We don't need robots - we need shopping-cart ta (Score:2)
It's called "bike stealing."
Re:We don't need robots - we need shopping-cart ta (Score:2)
Basically your are describing 1998 technology, the Swiss CityCart [www.post.ch]. Which was in itself a progression of a Dutch experiment in 1972, the Witkar [wikipedia.org].
Be warned: both projects were ended quite quickly. There are a lot of technological, social en political pitfalls on the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Bring it on (Score:2)
I figured sooner or later it would come to robotic cars -- you ave an appointment for your commute, the robocar drives to your home, picks you up, drives you to your workplace, drives away. No need for park
Re: (Score:2)
Try 3-4 times as wide.
A robocab can be 1 passenger and if so they need only be about 3 feet wide. Since a robocab can be counted on to move in a predictable fashion I see no reason why three (3) of these little cars might occupy one of our current lanes. Then we have the issue that the Robocab's might not need to be parked. This still will leave room for another lanes with two, four and 6 ++ passenger models.
There is just so much that can be done if we have a small efficient car that moves
Already done in Malaysia (Score:4, Interesting)
This train of course runs on a set track but it does illustrate the idea.
I think this is a good development. I share the optimism of many experts who suggest we are already at or near peak oil. Currently we produce about 85 million barrels per day and at this point Saudi Aramco has admitted Ghawar is in decline up to 8% and the country as a whole is declining 2%. They join Kuwait which announced last November that Bergan is in decline. The next largest fields are Canatarrel and DaQing and these are in about a 14% decline along with Bergan.
These top four 4 feilds collectivly produce about 12-15% of the worlds conventional oils and they just illustrate the problem. Most countries and most oil fields are presently in decline.
The Jack#2 well announced by Cheveron last week may hearld in a new field potentially with 3-15 billion barrels. If so then this feild may be able to produce 750,000 barrels per day by the 2010-2015 time frame.
By 2015 if we subscribe to the idea that we're going to lose 5% production per year from the current 85 million barrels produced per day, then by 2015 we'll be short well over 15 million barrels of Oil per day (BOPD) of production compared to today. Tar Sands may add 2.2 million BOPD or even more. The Cheveron/Devon discovery may add almost another 1 million. But 85-85*(0.95^10) is a loss of 31 million BOPD and thus with this rough rough calculation I've already factored in everything we are likely going to be able to do and still some.
The bottom line is we need to cut consumption in a big way and the sooner the better. A HUGE percentage of the liquid fuels consummed, especially in the USA, is totally wasted. SUV"s sit six (6) abreast in grid lock traffic with their stereos cranked up and their air conditioners blasting. If we were to factor in the waste of people's lives - spending hours commuting to a job that may amount to little more than beauracratic paper shuffling, this alone might be considered the crime of the century.
But what we are doing to our planet and our future is even worse. All of that fuel wasted while commuting (often 1 person to a truck) is not available for useful purposes like industrial, chemical feedstocks, or by farmers to produce food.
Robocabs, if they are fuel efficient and small and sized for the job are an obvious answer.
Currently the USA burns over 20 million barrels of oil per day. If we get the SUV's off the road and replace them with a "Jonny cab" (from Total Recall - its a RoboCab) then we save lives because we get stupid drivers away from behind the wheel, we cut commuting time because the commute can be organised in a far more efficient manner than just plain old grid lock, and we might save enough fuel to save our precious butts in the process.
The thing is this fuel crisis is likely to be fully recognised as the beginning of a fundamental change to the human condition by 2010. Its still a few months to a few years off. Oil prices in the $70 range are the harbinger of things to come. We're ok for a short while. Next year we might not be so lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
Chicago O'Hare has something similar as well:
http://www.airwise.com/airports/us/ORD/ORD_09.html [airwise.com]
I have never used it to go between terminals but it is nice to use to get to/from the long term parking lots. I have been using it for years and never had a problem with it.
Re: (Score:2)
OT: No such thing as an oil crisis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A pneumatic tube transport might work. These are used in Factories but if tubes are built large enought to hold your average grocery bag and large enought to hold a case of wine or a case of beer - then one could simply order it up and its dropped in the tube and a computer delivers it to your abode.
A well desgined system could move the product fast enough that the beer would still be cold by the time your domestic robot receives it and puts it in the fridge for you.
This would give a whole n
Simulated driver (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So are they gonna pipe in mid-eastern music, garlic smells, and strange bead thingies dangling from the mirrors to give it the real cabbie ambiance?
Probably not. If you listen to "Time" by ELO, they'll probably make the driver a red head, blonde or brunette depending on your taste and probably track your preference. She'll have a sweet voice and will not be inclined to argue. Next she will be just the right blend of demanding but nice. You can paraphrase this to mean "Stimulating".
Alas, as the say in
Personal rapid transit - not robocabs (Score:2)
Hope! (Score:2)
If they can make a system of automatically piloted vehicles within the ancient, twisted roads of Europe, it would be almost effortless to convert a similar system to the (comparatively) modern roads of America. Given our vast stretches of highway, an automated system could make long distance road travel less expensive and almost as effortless as train or even plane travel.
And your car probably wouldn't want to inspect your shoes before you get in either.
4 kms (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, what airports have you been to where car-parking is all within 4km of the airport?
Idiot.
No, I don't understand, tell me..? (Score:2)
No, I don't understand, tell me. ... look forward to hearing from you...
- In Europe cars are not as important as in other places?
- In Europe land is more heavily built up than elsewhere so they have to put car parks where they can?
- In Europe they don't help car drivers much?
- In Europe they put their emphasis on better public transport too and from airports so you don't really need a car?
will it be as reliable as .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that differs from which type of train?
Personal Rapid Transit systems (Score:3, Informative)
Back in the 70s, the big systems companies (later to be consumed by Raytheon, Boeing, etc.) was working on these mass transit systems to improve on some of the deficiencies of existing busses, subways, light rail, cars, taxicabs, etc. Ultimately they got out of the business by the 80s... I suppose municipalities aren't very visionary about such things, and it's probably much easier to just pour money into building more roads and federally-funded highways and pass/hide the vehicle costs to people to buy and maintain cars and not bother worrying about traffic congestion or pollution.
Anyway, there are a handful of PRT companies today (Ultra, Skytran, Taxi2000) still trying to push these systems out. Unfortunately, they seem responsible for lots of astroturf propaganda sites that all look and sound exactly the same. But ultimately, the decision to fund and build such broad advanced and integrated municipal systems are highly political. Yuck, politics.
So the only systems that seem to have a chance of being deployed are targetted towards campuses and airports. The only PRT-like thing in existence is a little 3-station tram system built by Boeing for WVU http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/morg.ht
But looks like Ultra is finally succeeding in putting more modern systems in Dubai and Heathrow. It's kinda ironic that these campus transit systems are primarily designed to shuttle people to and from a car parking lot
Oh well, one of these days we might have something that look and function a bit more like the PRT as shown in films like Minority Report. But it will take some visionary public officials to make it a priority, as well as some visionary systems engineering to define interface standards so the system can be smoothly maintained and upgraded over the decades. At least high fuel prices and increasing concern with environmentalism and sustainability may actually raise the public consciousness about this soon.
Ruthless (Score:2)
Re:When you pay the fare it says (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That explains why the Wikiquotes site has been getting shorter and shorter...
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Chicago and we think Wisconsin drivers are horrible. We do like to drive fast and cut people off though, I admit that.
Re: (Score:2)
What about prostoalex (Score:2)
So at #1 by a sizable margin over Roland, that makes prostoalex the uber ad whore?
Re: (Score:2)