10 Mph Moving Sidewalks Could Make Crosstown Buses Obsolete
nymag.comRobert A. Heinlein wrote a short story in 1940, "The Roads Must Roll", featuring long-distance, high-speed moving roads, not just sidewalks.
An idea not entirely unlike this was also used in Isaac Asimov's "The Caves of Steel".
And the entirety of Strugatskies' XXII Century Noon.
Right, and Heinlein's solution to "whizzing past the bakery" was that there would be food service traveling along the road with you. In NYC, maybe very skinny food carts?
There was a fast (10 kph) moving sidewalk in the Paris metro station "Montparnasse" for 12 years or so. It never worked out. You can't easily step on it; for years they had to have employees helping people stepping on the fast lane without falling down. And the thing broke down all the time, it was barely available half the time. Finally they replaced it with a good old fashioned 4 kph moving sidewalk.
Faster isn't always better. Moving faster is overrated.
They've solved the boarding/debarking issue by having variable speeds, but maintenance still seems like it's going to be a huge problem. Escalators/moving walkways are always having maintenance problems. It's a simple result of how many moving parts and rubbing surfaces are involved. Think of a car moving on a road -- you've got four tires and two spinning axles. You can easily go many tens of thousands of kilometers without needing any servicing, and when you do finally need servicing, it's just a quick tire replacement. Fixing walkways/escalators isn't nearly so simple, and if there's any problem, it takes down the entire span.
This article is about a walkway that moves slower at the ends, like a ski lift.
The Paris metro one was slower at the ends. The ends were made of gradually faster rolls, so you had to let your feet flat on the ground and dont try to walk until on the main, faster part of the sidewalk. Trying to walk on the gradually accelerating parts was a sure way to fall.
I wouldn't say that moving faster is overrate, but folks can't go from 0 to 10 in an instant, and partial variable speed is an absolute engineering and maintenance nightmare.
In related news, Teleportation Could Make Airplanes Obsolete if only physicists can figure out how to transmit and re-assemble humans correctly.
Moving sidewalks are like electric cars - the fact that they are used or not is not about basic infeasabilities of engineering (although there is development needed) but of politics.
A moving sidewalk seems much more plausible and practical than a hyperloop in improving transportation.
Nobody knows how to build a teleporter, whereas moving sidewalks are pretty mundane technology by now.
Not outdoors!
I visit Toronto quite often. They have a moving sidewalk (conveyor system) in Terminal 3 when you arrive and disembark from your plane. The video of the moving sidewalk they link looks to be the one I'm referring to and if you look at the date it's from 2009. That's probably the last year it was in operation.
In the last 2-3 years (and I'm there at least once a month) the moving sidewalks have maintenance signs on them and have never worked. As a matter of fact I put a small sticker on the belt/handrail and it hasn't moved guaranteed in about a year. It makes the walk to Customs and Immigration quite the haul.
It could be that they have disabled them permanently so people don't get to the customs/immigration area to quickly and overwhelm an already overwhelmed system. Don't know....
The moving walkway pictured in the article is the same one, and it worked two years ago. It was a rush to glide past even the regular moving walkways. A futuristic treat after a long flight and grouchy border guards.
The Amsterdam Airport has them all over the place and they always seem to work.Considering the distances involved, they are very convenient.
There actually is a sidewalk conveyor belt (and some sidewalk escalators) in operation in Bilbao. I'm not sure how much of a maintenance headache it is in practice, but it does make a hilly neighborhood more easily accessible.
This has been proposed many times. Here is one plan from 1937 that would have been located where the Market Street BART tunnel is now:
http://blog.sfgate.com/thebigevent/2015/07/10/35-years-befor...
The future used to be much more interesting.
Check out Whale Bus:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/14/Fr...
Waaaay too many moving parts if you ask me.
I have an alternative idea: Electric monowheels(or kick scooters):
-Not fixed-route.
-Barely any maintenance.
-Even the non-exploding ones cost as much as (subsidized) public transport over their lifetime.
-Same speed as this moving sidewalk and bicycles - could potentially share the bike lanes with the latter.
Two major disadvantages though are weight and usability in bad weather. I guess nothing beats cars when it comes to comfort of traveling.
Why is being fixed-route a bad thing? When you already have city-scale capacity-planning data saying that 100k people make a particular trip on a particular route daily, building fixed infrastructure to accommodate that route usually ends up with a much lower TCO than the equivalent mobile infrastructure. A subway train costs less in maintenance, fuel, and road-congestion than the equivalent number of busses, to serve the same load on the same route. Mobile infrastructure only gains an advantage where the load on a route isn't enough to pay back the capital costs of fixed infrastructure (e.g. busses out to a depopulated exurb.)
Buses and trams and subways are fixed route. Also, they are dependable. Sometimes foolproof and simple is better than infinitely flexible.
It's called a Segway.
I wish Boston would put one (or a 4mph one) underground walking path between Bowdoin station and MGH so that people could easily transfer without having to either clog the green line or cross traffic in the rain/snow.
The DC Metro talked about putting tunnels between some close downtown stations so people could walk rather than take trains for close transfers. For now, they have programmed the electronic fare system so that if you walk between the stations on the street you don't pay twice.
Ha, I was sitting here looking on Cambridge St. and thinking the exact same thing.
The Thyssen-Krupp walkway at the Toronto airport is only 7.2 KPH (4.5MPH) in the middle, fast section.[1] Wikipedia claims it's usually broken. The Paris Montparnesse 9 KPH moving sidewalk had too many falls, was slowed down, and later removed. The "10 MPH moving sidewalk" is a discussion item in a paper, not a working system. This is a tough mechanical problem, with no really good solutions.
I don't really want to be on a moving sidewalk when its ten below zero fahrenheit and snowing - but hey that's just me. But if they could enclose them in a glass or plastic dome it would be far more preferable than riding the bus.
The problem with the bus is you have to wait for it outside, when it's ten below and snowing. The sidewalk would run continuously.
Costanza was ahead of his time.
JERRY: The only thing I can think of is I told her we should have those moving walkways all over the city.
GEORGE: Like at the airport? (getting excited)
JERRY: Yeah.
GEORGE: That's a great idea!!!
JERRY: Tell me about it!
GEORGE: We could be zipping all over the place.
JERRY: They could at least try it.
GEORGE: They never try anything.
JERRY: What's the harm?
GEORGE: No harm!
Louis Wu would approve
Great idea. Much more power efficient than bus. And roads require maintenance when its raining, freezing or snowing. This thing will just work.
This entire idea is so batshit insane that anyone thinking it's a good idea really needs to recalibrate their sense of practicality.
A moving sidewalk will just work in the ice and snow? Is that sarcasm?
I'm sure it will be totally fine being iced over, being inundated with salt, and will never, ever have any problems with a car being parked on it.
Personally, I prefer to be inside a vehicle rather than outside when there's precipitation
I have an idea: bicycles.
Trams anyone?
Sounds like a good idea. Wonder what the maintenance costs would be.
Hint: Way more than a bus.
Doesn't pass physics or business tests. Yeah, bat-shit-crazy fits this. But, hey, NY Mag needed to fill some much needed space to generate clicks. Mission accomplished.
What's the business test? The point of municipal transportation is to facilitate the rest of economy, not be a profit unit in itself.
Well, I thought it was obvious. Let's see...
You have to dig up and destroy hundreds of miles of walkways.
You have to replace brick, concrete and tiles with hundreds of miles of very, very expensive electromechanical technology.
You have to do this in TWO directions.
You have to hire thousands of workers, technicians and engineers.
You have to fund the development of the technology because it doesn't exist for this application.
You have to provide power, lighting, etc.
If this is in snow country, you have to provide a small army of snow removal trucks and crews to keep the darn things clean. Even then you'll still pay to move tons of snow, which won't be cheap.
You'll have to widen sidewalks in lots of places in order to accommodate all forms of traffic and work around existing infrastructure (subway station entrances?).
You'll have to have medical services available because you will have people getting hurt as they fall off the thing and do stupid stuff at 10 miles per hour.
Liability is likely to be huge.
And, of course, there is no practical way to charge for usage so we are probably going to sock everyone with yet more taxes to build yet another bullshit project nobody is going to use.
If the context is to replace "crosstown buses" you are talking about tens to hundreds of miles of sidewalks and all of the organization, infrastructure, cost and support to take something simple (buses and bus routes) and turn it into something complex, pointless, questionable and unlikely to really work.
The cost of such a ridiculous system would be staggering. Not sure why anyone who reads HN would need this spelled out.
I think you are presuming a method of implementation and routing with some location in mind where this would not be that applicable.
I disagree most strongly about the need to dig up and destroy walkways. We have 3 dimensions to work with - to go up, or, down. In any case I would see this analogous to a public urban rail system such as a metro or a tram.
I don't see it as a big issue to dig a tunnel for this - lots of cities implement rails and such that go wherever public transportation is needed.
The only argument which I agree is the biggest hurdle - which is actually an unknown - is how to make the system sufficiently robust so you don't need an army of engineers to maintain it. The fact that there are no known robust systems is not a good enough argument. Lots of mechanical systems were in the development over a century after someone figured out how to make them as practical to make a major impact(steam engines, automatic weapons).
How robust is the most robust implementation possible and how expensive it is are the two major questions to my mind. If it's too expensive to maintain - then it's too expensive to maintain.
The point you should be agreeing with is that regardless of how you build it --dig a tunnel, rip-up the sidewalk or go vertical-- the cost of such a system defies a comparison to a simple fleet of buses by a huge margin. I would venture to say one, if not two orders of magnitude.
I mean, the thing is ridiculous to such a degree that it is surprising to see anyone arguing in favor of it.
Buying a fleet of electric buses would make far more sense than this insanely ridiculous idea.
What's wrong with the physics?
This term is a generic concept that has to do with the idea that it just doesn't make sense at a very basic level. No need to get into advanced scientific analysis to figure this out, the "physics" of the thing makes no sense without having to do a single calculation.
For example, compare these two options:
Option 1: Take 10 or 20 bus routes. Each being 5 to 10 miles long. Convert all buses to electric power.
Option 2: Take the same routes. Rip-up 200 miles of sidewalk (yeah, they'll be some overlap, this is just a quick mental exercise). Develop new technology. Install 400 miles of it (you need two directions of travel). Staff for installation, support, etc.
The first passes "physics" in that asking "does it make sense given all we know?" test results in a pretty quick "yes!". The second is such an obscene deviation from what would make sense from almost any perspective that it is surprising anyone would consider discussing it at all.
Take, for example, having 400 miles of active sidewalks. You just replaced a few buses with 400 miles of sidewalk moving most of the time. Why would anyone wait if the sidewalk is right there. Whereas before people would wait a few minutes for a ride now you are going to have dozens of miles of expensive power-consuming active sidewalks moving all the time simply to carry a single person 100 meters to then have them cross the street and get on the next active sidewalk. And, if it snows, now you are carrying tons of snow until you devote a small army of trucks to go clean the snow. I mean, the more you think about the reality of this utopic concept the stupider it sounds.
It'd probably make far more sense to have a small fleet of electric scooters available for rent and use only along a predetermined route. If you get off that route they turn off. So now, you'd have small one or two person clean scooters distributed along a 5 to 10 mile route for anyone to hop on and off as needed. At most you might have to walk a block or two to get one. This isn't an idea that I thought through. I'm just pulling it out of a hat to illustrate that the "physics" of this off-the-cuff concept would make far more sense than ripping-up hundreds of miles of sidewalk to install a monster of a system that makes less than zero sense.
The "does it pass physics" test refers to stuff that just doesn't make sense. Like a miracle, or the earth being 6,000 years old, or buying a supercomputer to do basic math or commuting in a Humvee. In other words, there are things that defy reasonable reality to such an extent that they simply don't make sense.
> if it snows, now you are carrying tons of snow until you devote a small army of trucks to go clean the snow
I don't think you've thought this part through. Not that snow isn't a problem that needs dealing with, but "carrying tons of snow" is not the problem you have. If this works anything like a traditional conveyor belt then while it is running it is dumping all the snow at one end, the same end where it is dumping all the passengers, whereupon you are no longer "carrying" that snow. There could be heating elements or blowers along the way that melt the snow such that it drains off the side, or perhaps the slowing-down-at-the-end step involve grating separation such that snow falls through to some lower level? Something along those lines. I'm not sure what the precise solution for snow-on-a-conveyer-belt is but surely it would make use of the massive running conveyer belt as part of the solution, not rely on a "small army of trucks".
No, I thought it through. I am actually very surprised anyone would even argue in favor of any version of this hair-brained idea.
Do the math on the cost of accelerating and decelerating people + snow and melting of moving the snow. Calculate the cost of the personnel needed to manage that and the cost of the trucks needed to manage equipment, etc.
The entire thing is dumb beyond description.
Let's put it this way. If you had to pay for it yourself you'd take a look at the outrageous immensity of the bill, turn around and say "hey guys, what's wrong with a couple of buses?".
This seems to be the paper behind the article: http://www.academia.edu/7952415/Accelerating_Moving_Walkway_...
What's wrong with buses includes that they take up a lot of space, have a high energy cost to run, tend to have a relatively low peak throughput, tend to be noisy and polluting, and you often have to wait a long time for the next one.
It's expensive to build these contraptions now but the cost is likely to come down over time. Once built, by energy cost per person they don't compete with "make people walk on a non-moving sidewalk" but do compete pretty well with most of the alternatives. You COULD build them in such a way that the cost of dealing with snow is minimal, it's just a matter of deciding on a suitable strategy and implementing that strategy. The dumbest, simplest strategy would be to add some sort of roof or canopy or shade structure such that snow and rain fall on either side of the conveyer belt. (Like, say, the conveyer belt entrance to Bally's Casino in Las Vegas: https://rlv.zcache.com.au/ballys_las_vegas_conveyor_belt_pos... )
Other options include digging a suitable drainage/collection area that snow can fall into as the belt turns or, yes, melting snow with a heater as it passes a grating. The heater option is only energy expensive while it's snowing but it's still likely cheaper than having guys with trucks clear it. But if the area just plain has too much snow for melting it to be practical you go with the roof option.
We'll agree to disagree. The paper is academic nonsense. Pointing to a paper doesn't mean the thing paper is about makes sense. All it means is that someone wrote a paper about it.
In the real world, to those of us with experience in non-trivial construction projects, such an idea is ridiculous beyond comprehension.
Take a look at the insanity that the California high speed train has become. A train to nowhere that nobody is going to use and will not be high speed and will cost massively more than the sixty billion politicians promised it would cost. And that's a "simple" project compared to tearing-up a city.
But,yeah, cool science fiction.
EDIT: Just thought of adding one thing. This is the same kind of "there's a paper about this" project as flying cars. There are people --and INVESTORS!!!-- who keep throwing time and money at flying cars. They don't make sense. It's a bad, bad, bad idea. Yet here we are, every six months someone wants to build a flying car.
And that's because buses are THE WORST form of transportation imaginable.
Anything is better than a bus.
Buses have never been the opposite of obsolete. They were always a step backwards.
Trolleys with dedicated lanes make sense.
When travelling distances of less than 30 miles, buses are for people who hate themselves.
You're probably American, I've learnt from HN that you have a sub par bus network there. I live in Istanbul and find buses quite pleasing. Your city design and your public transportation system are to blame.
Traffic and the comparative size of automobiles, compared to buses, means buses get stuck in congestion and delayed more readily in shared roadways. Buses almost always have to compromise with the surrounding vehicles and yeild right-of-way to others, which pretty much means they go slower, and you suffer a longer ride.
Waiting for a bus usually means waiting outdoors. There are tons of reasons why bus stops are no fun at all.
Everything need not be fun and comfortable. Publ7c transport is cheaper, safer and better for environment. Also you can only drive when driving a car, but when you are not driving the vehicle you're on you get to make use of the travel time.
Don't blame the bus, blame the system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio
BRT doesn't fix the ride-quality issue.
A trolley is a bus with an overhead electricity supply.
Streetcars can operate on rails too, and thus are not implicitly buses.
There is evidence of this still embedded in the pavement of cities which have, or used to have, above-ground trolley systems.
Streetcars are generally not called trolleys - unless they are heritage streetcars using trolley poles, generally only in the States. Modern streetcars or trams use pantographs.