How Will We Get Around Near-Future Earth? 974
Slob Nerd points to this BBC article on future transport possibilities. It begins "The prospect of a revolution in air travel has been raised by Nasa's successful test of a 5,000mph plane. But are we likely to see similar advances in other forms of transport? Dusting off the crystal ball, what changes might come in the way we get around? What big ideas are out there, and do they have any chance of seeing the light of day?"
High speed trains (Score:5, Interesting)
Faster planes? (Score:5, Interesting)
The way I see it, my getting across the country isn't a matter of airplanes not being able to go faster, it's airplanes not being allowed to go faster.
Now, a couple of Maglevs might be nice....
Bike.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Good'ol human powered transportation never hurt any one..or has it?
Electric cars, I hope (Score:2, Interesting)
Also I hope that cities start being designed to be anti-car, meaning they are designed to be accessed on foot or by public transit systems. If you've ever been to Singapore you know what I'm talking about.
---------
Create a wireless web [chiralsoftware.net] site
Re:I dunno . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
With a fusion reactor, you've got (on current technology) a great big blob of plasma at incredibly high temperatures. Not something you want to have escape into the environment. Against that, though, it's not particularly radioactive -- yes, there are radioactive isotopes in there, but they're short lived. Most of the byproducts of fusion will be helium-3 or helium-4, both of which are stable from a nuclear point of view. You may also get helium-2, which would decay pretty damn fast to deuterium (aka hydrogen-2) and tritium (hydrogen-3) which decays (half life of about 12 years) to helium-3.
So the short term effect of a fusion accident would probably be worse than the short term effect of a fission accident. But I'd rather be cleaning up the result of a fusion accident after a couple of days than the result of a fission accident. And if I were told I had to live in a post-accident zone, I'd be choosing the post-fusion zone, not the post-fission zone.
As for the radiation released by a fusion reaction, most of it is a few neutrons (deuterium fused with tritium, for example, will produce helium-4, plus a neutron). That'll irradiate structures, but can be controlled without too much trouble.
In short: I'd be happy with a fusion reactor in the back yard. Just give me enough room that the super-heated plasma won't cause me grief if it spills out, and shield the neutron emissions, and we'll get along fine.
End of Oil? (Score:2, Interesting)
dubious speed arguments (Score:5, Interesting)
the jury is out on whether high speed rail systems are economical. the fingers are typically pointed at systems in Europe or Asia that aren't analogous to the geography and population density of much of the United States.
part of the cost and inefficiency of air travel is caused by our hub-and-spoke air network system. this forces a lot of connections and short hops that could be unnecessary.
James Fallows wrote an interesting book about the very-near future of air travel. He makes the case that we need smaller regional airports and smaller high efficiency jets. These would allow many of us to make direct city-to-city flights without the need to go thru congested hub cities.
Check out Fallow's Free Flight at Amazon. Free Flight [amazon.com]Re:High speed trains (Score:5, Interesting)
No the flip side, trains are great expecialy if they come by all the time and you can just go down and buy a ticket and get on. That would be great. Also since I hate planes I would love them. I'm a mechanical engineer, I just can't deal with planes. All the way through college everything seamed to be about how airplaces fail, and riding in them I over-think ever sound they make. So I would love trains, the price has to be right though. I saw something saying a Acela (sp?) train ticket from DC-Boston was like 280 bucks, (note this could be wrong, it was something like that). Thats crazy. I would expect it to not be more then 30 bucks or so. If trains arn't dirt cheap it won't work. It shouldn't cost the same as a airplane ticket.
Now here is something else. Planes have numbered days unless they come up with something. Planes need fuels like Kerosene and Diesel, that is, heavy hydrocarbons. Without such energy dense fuels they can't get off the ground. There is a limited supply of fossil fuels. It's projected to run out at any moment in the next 20-400 years (yes thats was making fun of dooms day predictions). Without such fuels airplanes are screwed. You can make fuel like Fisher Tropes Diesel, but that takes a lot of energy and isn't very clean to produce. It's hard enough to make the cost number works for planes as is, double the cost of fuel and hell really breaks loose.
So as it stands now planes are screwed in the future, thus why most things talking about the future don't mention planes. You can't make an electric plane that would go very fast. And to power it you'd need a nuclear reactor up there. This makes you wonder what we will do for trans-ocean travel.
So even though trains will be a bitch to move to and take a long time, they might just happen do to no other good answer.
energy source (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Faster planes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just changing the shape of the aircraft seems to lessen the sound already.
Re:Excercise? Ooops, bad word. Sorry. (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in Manhattan and do not have a car. I walk everywhere or take the subway, since everything I need is so close, and even if I did have a car driving in this traffic would be aggravating and expensive besides. It works fine, but I really miss the Good Old Days(TM) when I lived in suburban environments and had a car.
- Purchasing large objects: In a carless city, I don't know how I would buy large things, such as furniture. I get that stuff delivered nowadays but if there were no roads how would it get to my door?
- Groceries: Walking back to my apartment carrying a bunch of grocery bags is no fun.
- Weather: Walking in general is not fun in the snow. Getting takeout food is a pain in this situation, and I don't really have much option since I didn't buy groceries (see above).
Once the carless city expanded beyond a small town, it would quickly become inconvenient to live there, if my experience is worth jumping to conclusions from. A subway/train system really helps, but you have to run it with an iron fist if you don't want it to become a urine-soaked pit. (Side note: Singapore's train system is spotless and all around wonderful. But the necessary authoritarianism wouldn't fly here in the US.)
On the other hand, maybe I'm just lazy. Manhattan would be a much cleaner place without cars, and maybe the tradeoff is worth it.
Re:High speed trains (Score:2, Interesting)
you know if they start building them it will end up being funded by tax payers against thier will. not good if you ask me.
Sub-orbital transporters (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:High speed trains (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm no expert, but I do recall a couple of discussions with a British trainspotter who contradicted me when I denigrated America's freight system along with her passenger system. Apparently (and again I'm no expert and am almost 100% quoting a trainspotter) America's transporting a fairly high percentage of its freight by rail, compared to Europe. Almost 100% of US track-miles are owned by railfreight companies, whereas most European rail is devoted to passenger traffic.
The one anecdote that I can add to that that approaches first-hand experience was hearing said Brit trainspotter proclaim, following a road-trip from Denver to Dallas, that the mile-plus-long trains he'd seen rumbling along beside US 287 between Amarillo and Dallas were unlike anything he'd seen in Europe.
Of course its equally important to point out that the Shinkansen and Eurostar, and even the more modest Swiss and Finnish passenger trains beat the hell out of the old Silver Meteor I once took from South Carolina to Florida. I don't even know if that line still runs.
Still, a lot of Europeans are finding that for the a lot of long-distance travel, air is vastly prefferable to rail. Especially now that Europe has allowed discount airlines to begin operating, ditching the protected national carriers.
Ever seen a Cat skeleton in a tree? (Score:3, Interesting)
Think about it: have you ever seen a cat skeleton in a tree? They find their own way down. Firefighters around here don't even respond to one of those calls.
-cp-
Re:High speed trains (Score:3, Interesting)
However, now the LA City Council is dicking around with stuff like a train from West LA to Ontario Airport and another from West LA to Palmdale Airport. What's the goal? To shunt travelers who would normally fly out of LAX to lower traffic airports that are also managed by the same people who manage LAX.
After the hell that is the drive from the San Fernando Valley to the Silicon Valley, I am personally quite partial to an LA/SF route. Since there is Caltrain and BART service to feeder you out from SF to everywhere else in the Bay Area it would make a lot of sense. If there were a stop in Santa Barbara along the route it would be a tourist's dream. An hour to Santa Barbara? Two to San Francisco? I'm there.
Considering how badly fuxored the California economy is, I'm not holding my breath.
One last thing: Amtrak isn't a bad ride. Van Nuys to Santa Barbara/Goleta is a pleasant run, I make it several times a year. It's not really that expensive, either. Especially when you consider the expense of gasoline...
Re:Shorter distances? (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm not kidding about the 50 square blocks of nothing but the above. Literally, you walk several blocks in any direction and it's condo building next to condo building next to condo building next to apartment building next to condo building. No big yards. No single family homes.
What's the result? It's packed. If you don't have off street parking, try finding a spot after 5:00 pm on the weekdays, or on the weekends at all. (It's a hot spot for 4th of July, and my first year here I foolishly gave up my spot to drive (!!!) to the grocery store when I could have walked. It ended up that I had to park more than half a mile from my place upon returning.) It's populated primarily by college students and 20-somethings. Being in that demographic myself, I have no qualms, but my biggest complaint is that they're mostly renters so they don't give a damn about the area. So it's not uncommon to find several beer cans / beer bottles on the street/sidewalk after a Friday/Saturday night. Plus, it can be very loud at very late hours (thankfully I live on a cul-de-sac on the quiet side of town, so it's only noisy maybe once a month, when the folks in a neighboring condo unit throw a party).
I am here, though, because I love it. Not the noise, or pollution, but the beach (less than 1 mile away) and the feeling of the town. Everything is walkable. I walk to restaraunts, to the grocery store, to the drug store, to the office supply store, to Blockbuster, to the dry cleaners, to the bar, to the 7-11, to the beach, and to the basketball courts. I've had my car out here for close to four years now and have put less than 25,000 miles on it since moving here.
The point is, being crammed together does have its advantages, but it also comes with a slew of disadvantages as well (increased noise, pollution, etc.). Also, most Americans really like large living spaces, and who can blame them? I'd love a huge house with acres of back yard, but that's not affordable here (a two bedroom condo, 1,200 square feet, would likely go between $400k-$500k). I own a place in a condo building with 7 units. I have 1,050 square feet to my name. It's ok, it's just me and my fiancee for now, but it would be tough to raise a family in such cramped quarters. I fear we'll have to move further inland to more of a typical suburban type place once we start a family...
Re:High speed trains (Score:2, Interesting)
Trains can't steer around a bad piecs of trac or a downed bridge. Cars and trucks can redily take an alternative route that usually wouldn't be more then a couple of hours out of route time. Europe has never concentrated an effort on an organized road system like the us did untill recently (if they ever did). So rail transport other there still makes sence. In the U.S. road transportation is faster and makes even more sence not to mention the way train companies loose cargo. happens alot especially durring a union dispute.
Re:I want my flying car (Score:2, Interesting)
Trains are in fine shape already. (Score:5, Interesting)
Setting aside the idiotic abbreviation "USicans" (hint: the proper term for citizens of the United States of America is "Americans", for citizens of the United States of Mexico is "Mexicans", etc.)...
Although its passenger rail system could be accurately described as "completely useless" everywhere outside the coastal strip between Washington DC and Boston, the freight rail system of the USA is generally considered amongst the world's finest. With its already developed state, and tight integration with roadway freight, it's difficult to imagine in what way commerce between disparate parts of the US could be "increased" by building more rail links.
Re:I'll give you a reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Paradigm shift... (Score:5, Interesting)
The question should be how are we going to support a world with 10,000,000,000 people in it, while maintaining some semblance of quality of life. This idea of half a billion people in the U.S. going anywhere they feel like, any time they feel like, each in their own vehicle, which if by current standards continues is 7 feet high, 18 feet long, weighs 12 tons, sleeps 10, and get's 8 MPG, is at best insane. It ignores sanity on so many fundamental levels, I'm not even going to bother listing.
Designing living habitats that provide people with clean, safe, lawful, aesthetically pleasing environments, that are high density and preclude the need to travel more than a few hundred meters to receive/deliver any needed service, would immeditely transform our society. At that point the edge of the metroplex, might provide a variety of transportation for folk going to and from other island cities. The metroplex is a three dimensional hive, with business, housing, and recreation all built tightly into an interactive, engineered space, with little or no impact on the surrounding land. This allows people instant access to everything they need from work to pleasure... while only being minutes away from wild spaces they can visit and enjoy. Literally tens of millions of people can exist in a tiny hive like city. A place that has been optimized for crime prevention, cleanliness, well lit open airy spaces. In short a perfect controlled environment.
High speed rail, tube, or supercomputer networked controlled superconducting ribbon highways could easily manage regional transport. Ultra high speed air travel would be useful for travel to distant regions or other continents. Cable travel to geosynced space depots could carry passengers to cities on the moon, mars, callisto, europa, and ganymede. As well they might carry asteroid miners and their products to and from earth.
Even horseback becomes a viable form of transport into the natural spaces surrounding the cities (horses being highly efficient for that particular use... hover cars, like the Moller being viable for trips longer than a days horseback ride.) One might even relegate such vehicles to rental only since anyplace in the hive could be accessed in minutes by people movers and other metroplexs could be accessed by mass transit.
Any given form of transportation would only be viable depending on it's speed and efficiency. Each would inherently be designed and optimized to operate in a specific level of social/geographical granularity.
The tremedous advantage in societal cost, safety, improved environment, ease of living, efficiency, and quality of life would make living in such a place, a slice of heaven. Enhanced taxbase, with tremendously reduced cost of living, would allow money to be available for fantastic free schools, enhanced medical care, and a gorgeous, sparkling infrastructure. Who wants to move in? I know I do!
Genda
How to Replace All Private Transit with Public? (Score:5, Interesting)
Current mass transit systems have serious shortcomings that prevent 100% adoption though, so what problems do we need to resolve for a public transportation system to be appealing enough that private transportation is no longer a desirable alternative?
1. It needs to get you there quickly. You shouldn't have to transfer between different lines and different modes of transport and arrive at your destination 45 minutes later when you could have been there in 10 minutes via car.
2. It needs to provide door to door service. You shouldn't have to walk a few blocks, hop in a car, or take a bus, to get to a station and board public transportation.
3. It needs to be cheap. Public transportation already wins here when you factor in all the extended costs of car ownership. Most of the time your car sits unused in a driveway, garage, or parking space, and in the bigger picture that's just money ticking away by the minute in terms of us having a *much* larger fleet of vehicles overall than we need.
4. It needs to always be available. It can't stop running from 12am until 6am.
5. Travel needs to be private/not shared between passengers. You should have a car/coach/capsule that is private for you or you and companions for the duration of your trip.
6. It needs to be comfortable. A public system could have many advantages here, not having to drive is one of the biggest.
7. It needs to be be ubiquitous and extend everywhere. You should be able to go anywhere using the system that you can with a car.
I think all of these criteria could be met by replacing our entire road system, down to the last street and cul-de-sac, with a tube or rail system and having numerous individual cars/capsules that arrive on demand and take you where you want to go, all routed by computers (kind of reminiscent of the old pneumatic tube message systems). The cars/capsules could be privately owned, but I think it would work much better if they were shared/pooled to dramatically reduce the costs. I can think of ways to combine/support both options.
You would only need private/off-grid vehicles for specialized tasks. They could be designed to connect to the grid to get to a location and then detach and run independently at the job site.
I wonder how, cost-wise, this would compare to the entire road and automobile infrastructure, including what we each pay for private car ownership and maintenance. There are lots of interesting implications to this. What effect does it have on the idea of a neighborhood? The commercial strip? What do we do with all of the reclaimed space if roads are replaced by something with a much smaller footprint (do urban homeowners all get their lots extended by several yards or do we create some new system of a public greenspace grid)?
Is this a bad idea? What kinds of systems are being proposed out there for this kind of a broad shift toward something that is more humane, convenient, and cost-effective, then the mess we have today?
Re:How to Replace All Private Transit with Public? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think all of these criteria could be met by replacing our entire road system, down to the last street and cul-de-sac, with a tube or rail system and having numerous individual cars/capsules that arrive on demand and take you where you want to go,
The massive infrastructure cost and environmental damage would be comparable to paved roads and highways.
Tough nut to crack, but perhaps one can imagine a system of public electric automobiles that you just grab, use, and abandon. Unfortunately, it begs questions such as where the electricity comes from; how the cars are manufactured, distributed, maintained, and disposed of; what happens when you go somewhere and you have the only car, and someone takes it soon after you get there; how is all this paid for; etc.
Back to square one, or maybe I'm unable to switch entirely out of the private vehicle mentality.
Re: High speed trains (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:High speed trains (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps you should point out to him all the potential economic benefits. Austin has many people that commute to D/FW for work, believe it or not, and vice versa (believe it or not!). A high-speed train that would cut their travel time from 6 hours roundtrip to 2 hours roundtrip without costing a fortune would make a killing.
Everything from D/FW down to San Antonio needs to be stuck on some sort of high speed rail system. It's rapidly becoming one metropolitan area, and it makes perfect sense to combine them in public transport, but public transport for that whole area does require high speeds to be useful.
And if the airlines could see a decent ROI on getting regular commuters at a regular commuting price rather than weekend travelers at airline prices, I'd bet they'd jump on it. SW has had trouble in the past flying around Texas itself...
Re:Not by walking (Score:3, Interesting)
Parking
The North End in Boston is one the of the best places in the United States to get truly amazing Italian food, but don't bring the car. You'll generally spend an hour circling around, only to find a spot so far away that you're basically home. Chinatown isn't quite that bad, but don't bother bringing a car on Friday Night. And anyone who wants to park on Newbury street had better have either a ton of patience or a Commercial plate.
Thanks to the Big Dig traffic through Boston isn't so bad, but parking is still a nightmare. Better to just take the T wherever you need to go, and get some reading done.
New York and San Fransisco are similar. Expect to find parking at best five or six blocks away after circling for an hour (or pay 40 dollars for a spot in a lot, making cabs much cheaper).
Transportation infrastructure isn't going to change significantly until something significantly better arrives, or the current situation gets significantly worse. Driving is getting worse and worse every day.
Robotic taxis (Score:3, Interesting)
Functionally, we have that today. They are called taxi's. Of course they are operated by humans rather than AI's so the cost is rather high. Still, I think it is clear that you need quite lot of density to make this reasonably cheap and convenient.
Distributed Maglev (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, this system would take probably 50 years to implement throughout the country and yes, the cost of such a system would be ungodly, however baring the invention of star trek like transporters this seems like the best idea for the future of transportation.
part of the solution. (Score:2, Interesting)
Their consept solves some of the major problems that have keept the car a better option than comunal transportation.
skytran has:
1) no waiting (spare "pods" on every station)
2) point to point transportation. (every "pod" is independently routed)
3) high point to point speed (no intersections and no intermediate stopps.)
4) cheap. (no driver so costs are only material)
There are still several tecnical hurdles to overcome but this is the best idea for a future trasnsportation i have ever seen.
Re:High speed trains (Score:2, Interesting)
Not if you take into account all the check-in and check-out time and the time it takes you to get to the airport. High velocity trains can go with more than 300km/h and take you right into the heart of the city. I can hop on the train just a minute before it 'takes off' and buy a ticket inside.
If trains arn't dirt cheap it won't work. It shouldn't cost the same as a airplane ticket.
If you get the same transport (in terms of being taken to another place) in the same timerange (give or take 10-15%) as with airtravel, then why the heck should a trainride be cheaper than an airflight?
There is a limited supply of fossil fuels.
And a lot of the fuel in a plane is used to keep it above the ground, whereas trains simply roll on the rails. In short, trains are much more energy efficient, which means that even if they use fuel directly or indirectly through electricity, the fossil energy will last much longer.
Other environmental effects are often neglected. Planes produce exhaust gases way up in a zone where they reduce the ozone layer which is shielding us from radiation. Ever been in Australia? "Between eleven and three, slip under a tree!", that's what they teach their children in the kindergarden down under.
-silence
Well (Score:2, Interesting)
When the car is go mode, it jacks up the current to the motor controlling the wheels whenever the distance to the next car is far enough. It hits the brakes when, based on recent braking performance and current speed, the distance to the car in front is either too short or changing too fast. When coming to intersections, the track itself has an embedded system that tells our vehicle where other vehicles are that the car cannot see and what 'window' in traffic to use for merges.
So a series of simple embedded systems for the transit system, each run by a miniscule microcontroller running a tiny loop of assembly code. (except for the routing computers, which would be big and complex, but nobody dies if these fail) I am sure slashdot readers can appreciate how reliable the final system could be if engineered in this manner (pretty much never failing, except during initial trials or deliberate sabotage. Maybe a few accidents from unexpected flaws the first decade the system is used)
For boarding, each citizens presses a button on their cell phone and specifies what time and which transit station they wish to board at, as well as destination. Routing computers actually tell all the cars where to go and how to get there, and so a personal or group vehicle will wait at the transit station. It could be anonymous, with a photograph taken of the cars interior before and after each trip by an interior camera to determine if someone has vandalized the car. If that is the case, the transit card used loses it's deposit : no disclosing of the identity of the people using the system would be necessary.
Each car is made of fiberglass composite or some other cheap material, is fairly basic and utilitarian with completely standardized body panels, though some are very nice inside. Propulsion and braking is electric, and every vehicle used in the transit system uses the exact same hardware, for radically reduced construction and maintainence costs. Some vehicles, which cost more per trip, have leather interiors and full high definition television or internet access. Some contain cushions and bedding and curtains so that people could sleep or engage in sex while traveling.
Speed : each vehicle could reach the maximum practical speed for electric vehicles and steel rails : probably 120 mph for a typical system, at ALL times (well, obviously, acceleration times but these are brief and use special 'speed up' tracks for merging onto the main feeder, so other people are not inconvenienced by vehicles entering the traffic stream). Since each vehicle reacts in microseconds to changing events, much higher speeds than human drivers can handle are safer. In addition, congestion is kept to a minimum (except when a system failure occurs) because even on 'highways' slowdowns from human faults don't occur. Bumper to bumper traffic at full speed. The routing computers try to prevent any path from becoming too congested, and of course route vehicles around areas where the system has failed.
Transportation related fatalities could vary from low to virtually never occuring, ever, depending on how much money was invested in the system. But a general rule : these things would be at least 10 times safer than cars for the average driver in the av
Re:No more cars (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that private transportation will remain the norm. The emphasis on ownership, of your transportation being your property, is very strong in the US.
One of the other problems with mass transportation is that we seem to have "mass transportation = government operated" embedded in our minds. This is a real problem in car-oriented places, as people who don't use mass transit don't want to pay for it, and gov't operation somehow seems to lead to collective payment/subsidy.
Maybe if we had some sort of efficient delivery method for packages, faster than the mail. So you could go shopping and your purchase would be home before/as you got back. Maybe then there wouldn't be such an emphasis on private transportation.
Re:I want my flying car (Score:2, Interesting)
If you smack against a tree with your car it's your driving that's the cause except when someting is seriously wrong with the car. If it's an automated system, it's not gonna take a long time for the first sue. That's why they don't een consider automating the current infrastructure.
Your numbers are way off base... (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact of the matter is that in modern times nearly every country in the entire first world has sub-replacement population growth. Combine that with the recent paradigm shift in population growth in countries like China which previously had a major influence, and the probablye future advancement of third world countries, and you don't see anywhere near as dramatic an increase as what you say.
Until a few years ago, the United Nations and other institutions preparing population forecasts assumed that fertility would increase to replacement level and that subreplacement fertility was only a transitory phenomenon. This assumption is supported by the argument of homeostasis as discussed in Chapter 11 . In this view, fertility levels are not seen as the sum of individual behavior, but as one aspect of the evolution of a system in which individual behavior is a function of the status of the system (see Vishnevsky, 1991). Under such a systems approach the assumption of replacement fertility in the long run seems a defendable possibility. Therefore, we assumed a TFR between 2.1 and 2.3 in 2030-2035 as the high-fertility assumption in the five industrialized regions.
It is difficult, however, to find many researchers who support this view. Too much evidence points toward low fertility. The return to replacement fertility has been criticized as an assumed magnetic force without empirical support (Westoff, 1991). Many significant arguments support an assumption of further declining fertility levels. They range from the weakening of the family in terms of both declining marriage rates and high divorce rates, to the increasing independence and career orientation of women, and to a value change toward materialism and consumerism.
Read this [iiasa.ac.at] for more info, specifically this graph [iiasa.ac.at] show what the trend will more likely be like in the future.
Re:Paradigm shift... (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it interesting that urban sprawl and suburbia really took off after WWII due to Federal Highways and Federal Mortgage programs. Such programs could have encouraged living in more compact designs by only lending to people purchasing condos in central cities. Instead it made it possible for people to purchase homes further and further from the city center.
It may have all been coincidence, but Suburban sprawl does happen to spread out the population and the factories they serve. During WWII a major stategy of the US was to bomb enemy cities to deny the enemy armies material and supplies. With the invention of the Atomic bomb it became easier to wipe out compact cities. If the US became one big sprawl from coast to coast, it becomes harder to knock out population and factories leading to greater survivability in war. Was this encouraged or accidental?
Unfortunately, this strategy is proving a vulnerability now. It depends on fossil fuel under the control of foreign, sometimes hostil countries. It is now a matter of national security to move to a plan like you propose. But such densly populated structures are vulnerable to terrorists as well as nukes.
We may need to wait for world peace to have sensible living arrangements.
Re:Transportation is Evil (Score:3, Interesting)
People cling to their native cultures and societal structures with rabid tenacity, particularly when "threatened" by outside influences. Take a look at Europe, India, or supposedly homogenous cultures like China, and you'll find that a sense of place is still very, very much intact. In fact, as our population grows and mingles, more "places" are created -- all of our cultures, societies, and sacred "places" are the product of thousands of years of travel and communication.
I agree that it is good to preserve the aspects of your culture that are important to you, but it's also critically important to learn from what others have to offer: it's quite possible that they have better ways of doing things; better in the sense that it "fits" you better, not necessarily that it's faster or easier.
Place, culture, society -- these are all dynamic things. Utopianism and antiwhateverisms are the seductive illusions you speak of, not the essential human tendencies to move about and socialize.
Cheers.
Horseback (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm brushing up on my horseback-riding skills. While they're certainly not a perfect solution, horse have a certain charm and simplicity. Plus, they don't need fossil fuels, and they do produce something that would keep my methane-powered generator going... ;)
An impractical solution for many locales, horses are still an option to consider if your live in the right place.
Why does everyone have to rush around so much? Does it really matter if I'm in London by 2PM as opposed to 4PM? Must we bounce around like mad blips in a vdieo game? Give me a quieter, more evenly-paced life, less frantic and more thoughtful...
Different Licensing for Car Drivers (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the concept: You have one general driver's license that gets you anywhere, basically, on standard roads. But a new driver's license that allows you onto a type of super-super-highway to be built across the USA. This highway would be several lanes wide for ease and safety, and the speed limit would be high -- say, 150mph. The minimum would be at least 85 or 90mph.
The idea being here that if I am a driver with a good record, I can take a high-speed driving course and if I pass and install some standard, high-speed accessories in my car (3 or 4-point harnesses, etc), I am allowed to drive on the super-super highway and make a cross-country trip in very little time.
The fact is, there's plenty of morons who should never go over the speedlimit due to the fact that they can't even use a turn signal, let alone drive correctly. But there are plenty of safe, alert, attentive drivers who would benefit from being able to run their well-designed fast cars on a highway suited to their needs.
Plus, that way I wouldn't feel bad about kicking it up on a back highway because the day is gorgeous and 60mph is just too slow.
Re:Excercise? Ooops, bad word. Sorry. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Global Underground Maglev Subway (Score:2, Interesting)
The same network could be used for product delivery, mail, etc... It's a well-known (and hopefully true!) statistic that half of the world's GDP is taken up with inefficient transportation and associated industries (e.g. oil, shipping, cars, airlines) so a global underground subway could save a vast amount of resources and energy.
Vacuum Maglev! and arcologies! (Score:2, Interesting)
Infrastructure in space (Score:1, Interesting)
To do this we need to do the following:
1. We need to build a low cost launch, reusable Earth to orbit Vehicle.
2. We need to build a reusable Earth to Moon vehicle capable of hauling a large amount of cargo or personnel.
3. Finish off the Space station and make it a lot more usable.
4. Create a Moon base for mining, manufacturing & exploration.
5. Create a reusable long range space craft capable of traveling to Mars and beyond for; exploration, base building & cargo hauling.
6. possibly building a Mars base for mining, manufacturing & exploration.
This would do more for the world economy then anything else would.
Then benefits have already been proven in the 60's.
The benefits are global and I will list them:
1. Spin off technology.
2. Increased jobs.
3. New manufacturing plants, methods & products.
The history of this planet has always been to grow your economy open up new areas to exploration, and you will create new markets.
Create new markets and you improve your economy.
Tetalon
Either you're a part of the problem, or a part of the solution.
Which have you chosen to be.
Re: about EKRANOPLANS; there's possibilities . . (Score:2, Interesting)
About: the Caspian Sea Monster [swiftdsl.com.au]
Much development remains with LARGER Sizes, Leading Tandem Monoplane configurations, and Sidewall Hovercraft Surface manoevering;- aspects being possibilities in solving various problems.
Enclosed Fan Propulsion can solve high-power noise problems, and be used to augment swift-climb requirements!
.