This document provides a summary of the history and evolution of transport solutions over the past 200 years. It notes that during this period, transport solutions have evolved in response to varying environmental conditions, similar to how frogs have evolved over their 200 million year existence. The document then discusses several historic transport innovations from the 1817 "walking machine" to modern personal rapid transit systems being developed.
Apidays New York 2024 - The value of a flexible API Management solution for O...
Transtec delhi 2010
1. Where is transport
on the way?
Asko Kauppi
BM Design
Copyright (c) 2010 BM Design Oy Picture: (c) 2008 Daniel C. Fergus
2. History of frogs
During the 200 million years of their existence,
frogs have been evolving in response to varying
environmental conditions.
Pictures: (c) 2009-10 amphibianrescue.org
3. History of transport
During the 200 years of their existence,
transport solutions have been evolving in response
to varying environmental conditions.
4. History of transport
Generic bike ” Simple ideas can change the world. In 1888, while watching his son
Cargo bike ride a tricycle, John Boyd Dunlop noticed his discomfort whenever he
Road race bike
BMX bike rode over cobbled ground.
Stadium race bike
Mountain bike He knew the tricycle's solid rubber tires were to blame. The solution?
He wrapped the wheels in thin rubber sheets, glued them together,
Downhill bike
inflated them with a football pump for a cushioning effect - and
1890 Bicycle with
created the first commercially viable pneumatic tire. Dunlop patented
pneumatic tires
the idea, giving his fledgling Dunlop tire company a head start over
automotive competitors who had already recognized the tire’s many
advantages. Ten years later, Dunlop's invention had almost entirely
„
replaced solid tires.
1876 Tricycle
1870 Big wheel bicycle
1865 Velocipede
”fast foot”
1817 Paron von Drais
”walking machine”
Source: www.dunloptires.com
5. History of Personal Rapid Transit
?
2010 ULTra
Vectus
2010 CyberCab
MISTER
RUF
1975 Morgantown
1973 Cabintaxi
6. Promises of the PRT era
Maintenance
Congestion - public traffic is vital to have
- inefficiency - mostly uneconomical /
-wasted time subsidized
Accidents
Land loss - immense hidden cost
- unnecessary personal
-parking lots suffering
-street use
Pollution
-particles
-climate change
7. Promises of the PRT era
Predictability Maintenance
Congestion
-vehicle waiting
- public traffic is vital to have
- inefficiencyfor you
-trips always take the same
- mostly uneconomical /
-wasted time subsidized
time
Accidents
Land loss - immense hidden cost
- unnecessary personal
-parking lots suffering
-street use
Pollution
-particles
-climate change
8. Promises of the PRT era
Predictability Maintenance
Congestion
-vehicle waiting
- public traffic is vital to have
- inefficiencyfor you
-trips always take the same
- mostly uneconomical /
-wasted time subsidized
time
Accidents
Land reuse
Land loss - immense hidden cost
-parks - unnecessary personal
-parking lots suffering
-flood buffers
-street use
Pollution
-particles
-climate change
9. Promises of the PRT era
Le ased service
Maintenance
Predictability
Congestion table cost
- predic
- public traffic is vital to have
omic
-vehicle waiting - encourages econ /
- inefficiencyfor you
-trips always take the same
- mostly uneconomical
optimization
-wasted time subsidized
time
Accidents
Land reuse
Land loss - immense hidden cost
-parks - unnecessary personal
-parking lots suffering
-flood buffers
-street use
Pollution
-particles
-climate change
10. Promises of the PRT era
Le ased service
Maintenance
Predictability
Congestion table cost
- predic
- public traffic is vital to have
omic
-vehicle waiting - encourages econ /
- inefficiencyfor you
-trips always take the same
- mostly uneconomical
optimization
-wasted time subsidized
time
Accidents
Land reuse
Land loss Sa hidden
- immensefety cost
-parks - unnecessary personal
- emergency toleranc
-parking lots e
suffering
-flood buffers
-street use
Pollution
-particles
-climate change
11. Promises of the PRT era
Le ased service
Maintenance
Predictability
Congestion table cost
- predic
- public traffic is vital to have
omic
-vehicle waiting - encourages econ /
- inefficiencyfor you
-trips always take the same
- mostly uneconomical
optimization
-wasted time subsidized
time
Accidents
Land reuse
Land loss Sa hidden
- immensefety cost
-parks - unnecessary personal
- emergency toleranc
-parking lots e
suffering
-flood buffers
-street use
Pollution
Clean
-particles
-city air quality
-climate change
-carbon neutral
12. Promises of the PRT era
Le ased service
Maintenance
Predictability
Congestion table cost
- predic
- public traffic is vital to have
omic
-vehicle waiting - encourages econ /
- inefficiencyfor you
-trips always take the same
- mostly uneconomical
optimization
-wasted time subsidized
time
Accidents
Land reuse
Land loss Sa hidden
- immensefety cost
-parks - unnecessary personal
- emergency toleranc
-parking lots e
suffering
-flood buffers
-street use
Pollution
Clean
Ugly looks -particles
-city air quality
-climate change
-too big tracks -carbon neutral
17. Patent pending track
design
2-3 person cabin
Train mode for up to 9
people and/or luggage
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
18. Patent pending track
design
2-3 person cabin
Train mode for up to 9
people and/or luggage
Track capacity up to
5700 prs/h
(10m headway)
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
19. Patent pending track
design
2-3 person cabin
Train mode for up to 9
people and/or luggage
Track capacity up to
5700 prs/h
(10m headway)
Normal speed 45km/h
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
20. Patent pending track
design
2-3 person cabin
Train mode for up to 9
people and/or luggage
Track capacity up to
5700 prs/h
(10m headway)
Normal speed 45km/h
Fast mode 70km/h
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
21. Patent pending track
design
2-3 person cabin
Train mode for up to 9
people and/or luggage
Track capacity up to
5700 prs/h
(10m headway)
Normal speed 45km/h
Fast mode 70km/h
Adaptable power source
(usually batteries)
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
22. Patent pending track
design
2-3 person cabin
Train mode for up to 9
people and/or luggage
Track capacity up to
5700 prs/h
(10m headway)
Normal speed 45km/h
Fast mode 70km/h
Adaptable power source
(usually batteries)
Light at-grade station
(capacity 600 prs/h)
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
23. Patent pending track
design
2-3 person cabin
Train mode for up to 9
people and/or luggage
Track capacity up to
5700 prs/h
(10m headway)
Normal speed 45km/h
Fast mode 70km/h
Adaptable power source
(usually batteries)
Light at-grade station
(capacity 600 prs/h)
Heavy use parallel station
for traffic hubs (capacity
up to 5700 prs/h) Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
25. No protrusions in the
track; ideal for snow,
sand and durability
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
26. No protrusions in the
track; ideal for snow,
sand and durability
No external electrical
contacts
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
27. No protrusions in the
track; ideal for snow,
sand and durability
No external electrical
contacts
Produced as a co-
operation of existing
industrial partners
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
28. No protrusions in the
track; ideal for snow,
sand and durability
No external electrical
contacts
Produced as a co-
operation of existing
industrial partners
Stations at (pedestrian)
grade level.
Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
29. No protrusions in the
track; ideal for snow,
sand and durability
No external electrical
contacts
Produced as a co-
operation of existing
industrial partners
Stations at (pedestrian)
grade level.
Climbs 0..90 degrees Copyright 2010, BM Design Oy
30. Market entry niches
Tourist locations
- highly varying seasonal needs
- allows placing parking lots further away
from the attractions (and/or having many)
Historical sites
-very little digging work is required
-fits in tight places
-i.e. Greek islands
Campuses
-get employees / students to work
and back
31. Procurement model
Planning phase
Design phase ”Live”
"Live" Phasing out?
End of line
Customer End user
Customer billing
(optional) Renew
is responsible Foundation
contract?
Real time
performance
monitoring
Design the track
Design
Design is
responsible Quality
Track Recycling
control &
updates
Operator is
Operator
responsible
Personnel Operation
s
stion
Relevant questions e?
que - Where should e stations b be? ? plann
ed?
ant l ed
- Isac rmin
g as
v be p the track performing its function r?
Rele th d?
the stations
shou
ld ire ck erfo ette ired?
ere is r qu
- How much capacity iserequired? th e tra - Can it be ck p to performm b
tra made rfor better? requ
Wh acity re sh
ould s the to pe still
muc h cap Wh- eWhere should the track I go? it be m ade - Iss the track required?
How an I the track still
C
32. Leased sleervice
Procurement model cost
- predictab
- encourages econ
omic
optimization
Planning phase
Design phase ”Live”
"Live" Phasing out?
End of line
Customer End user
Customer billing
(optional) Renew
is responsible Foundation
contract?
Real time
performance
monitoring
Design the track
Design
Design is
responsible Quality
Track Recycling
control &
updates
Operator is
Operator
responsible
Personnel Operation
s
stion
Relevant questions e?
que - Where should e stations b be? ? plann
ed?
ant l ed
- Isac rmin
g as
v be p the track performing its function r?
Rele th d?
the stations
shou
ld ire ck erfo ette ired?
ere is r qu
- How much capacity iserequired? th e tra - Can it be ck p to performm b
tra made rfor better? requ
Wh acity re sh
ould s the to pe still
muc h cap Wh- eWhere should the track I go? it be m ade - Iss the track required?
How an I the track still
C
33. Intermediate break / questions?
Rapid, global declines among amphibians are partly
alarming because many occur for apparently
unknown or enigmatic reasons.
Thank you.
Pictures in this presentation:
www.iStockPhoto.com
www.danfergusdesign.com
www.komodomedia.com
http://tolweb.org/Neobatrachia
www.amphibianrescue.org
Notes de l'éditeur
Presentation given Apr 5th 2010 at the Transtec Delhi conference.
Frogs have evolved to fill any spots in ecosystems they can.
Also the technological evolution follows similar patterns. If there is a need, there is a way.
The van is actually a bus from Zambia (see people inside).
Here’s the evolution of the bicycle.
- In 1817, a gardener invented a running aid to get faster from one end of a (seemingly big) garden to the other. It was all wooden and did not have pedals.
- In 1865, pedals were added directly attached to the front wheel. Velocipede (”fast foot”) was a name for these vehicles. Together with better skills in metalworks, the wheels grew and grew and grew. Riding was less painful if the front wheel was big, but to modern eye these machines look really dangerous. And they were.
- In 1876, Mr. Dunlop (an Irish veterinarian) developed a pneumatic tire for his son’s tricycle (tricycles were behind also a group of other inventions from this time that paved way for the automobile revolution about 25 years later).
- The comfort brought by the pneumatic tire allowed trashing the by then dominant big front wheel design, and returning to the earlier concept of two similarily sized wheels. Advancements in metallurgy allowed durable chains to be produced. The modern bicycle had born.
The basic approach hasn’t essentially changed since.
PRT’s are today in a stage similar to bicycles (or: velocipedes) in the 1800’s. Or personal computers in the 1980’s.
There’s working concepts but the breakthrough lets wait for itself. Why?
The promises given by and PRT system - compared to conventional traffic solutions - are pretty similar.
If these systems are so wonderful, where are they?
Usually, it blows apart at the weight of the track.
The promises given by and PRT system - compared to conventional traffic solutions - are pretty similar.
If these systems are so wonderful, where are they?
Usually, it blows apart at the weight of the track.
The promises given by and PRT system - compared to conventional traffic solutions - are pretty similar.
If these systems are so wonderful, where are they?
Usually, it blows apart at the weight of the track.
The promises given by and PRT system - compared to conventional traffic solutions - are pretty similar.
If these systems are so wonderful, where are they?
Usually, it blows apart at the weight of the track.
The promises given by and PRT system - compared to conventional traffic solutions - are pretty similar.
If these systems are so wonderful, where are they?
Usually, it blows apart at the weight of the track.
The promises given by and PRT system - compared to conventional traffic solutions - are pretty similar.
If these systems are so wonderful, where are they?
Usually, it blows apart at the weight of the track.
In BM Design, we studied the track concepts and asked: ”how much can be removed, and yet have a working system?”
We came up with essentially a single, round main rail with a supporting side rail.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
It shall look like this.
Notice how the vehicle is only supported from one side at a time. This allows a second rail to emerge on the right, to which the vehicles can individually opt to move.
Because of the lightness of the track, it also costs very little to build. Our price target is 2 million Eur/km, being 5x cheaper than competing PRT offerings and 15x cheaper than building tram rails. You will get more coverage with the same money.
With PRT, tracks do not need to follow the route of existing transport corridors. One can do shortcuts through forest, park or grassland without affecting the underlying animal life, pedestrians or bicyclist.
At places, existing asphalt surfaces may be reclaimed for grass, i.e. to provide flood buffering areas. All such byeffects of a PRT network seem to be positive.
With PRT, tracks do not need to follow the route of existing transport corridors. One can do shortcuts through forest, park or grassland without affecting the underlying animal life, pedestrians or bicyclist.
At places, existing asphalt surfaces may be reclaimed for grass, i.e. to provide flood buffering areas. All such byeffects of a PRT network seem to be positive.
With PRT, tracks do not need to follow the route of existing transport corridors. One can do shortcuts through forest, park or grassland without affecting the underlying animal life, pedestrians or bicyclist.
At places, existing asphalt surfaces may be reclaimed for grass, i.e. to provide flood buffering areas. All such byeffects of a PRT network seem to be positive.
With PRT, tracks do not need to follow the route of existing transport corridors. One can do shortcuts through forest, park or grassland without affecting the underlying animal life, pedestrians or bicyclist.
At places, existing asphalt surfaces may be reclaimed for grass, i.e. to provide flood buffering areas. All such byeffects of a PRT network seem to be positive.
With PRT, tracks do not need to follow the route of existing transport corridors. One can do shortcuts through forest, park or grassland without affecting the underlying animal life, pedestrians or bicyclist.
At places, existing asphalt surfaces may be reclaimed for grass, i.e. to provide flood buffering areas. All such byeffects of a PRT network seem to be positive.
This picture presents an interim state, where both the new infrastructure (PRT) and the previous (parked cars) exist. PRT tracks can be used as an alternative for building more roads, or for reclaiming some of the parking spots for other (original) use in the city.
The picture is from a city of Naantali in Finland, dating back to the 13th century. Cars have been part of the city landscape only the last 70 years. Horse carriages and pedestrians ruled here before.
We intend to start by targeting certain niche areas s.a. tourist locations and historical sites. We’ll prove the system at these and keep growing to be able to provide solutions to existing regular cities.
Due to the cheap price and light design of the track, BM One can be applied in relatively small communities. The essential rules are to cover a natural local area of movement of the people (to reduce need of multimodal use and overlap with existing infrastructure, i.e. bus routes). In addition, there should be at least one hub location for connecting to ‘external’ connection s.a. light rail, subway or long distance buses.
This means BM One can be applied in surprisingly small communities, taken they are relatively densely populated. The exact optimal size varies by geography. So does the definition of ‘small’ community.
Horizontal axis shows the responsibilities of each stakeholder. Time runs from left to right.
The procurement model shall be a clear process with defined checkpoints. This will make it repeatable and immensely scalable.
Operator can either be affiliated with the customer, or BM Design, or be an independent third party. There are analogies to the mobile telephone way of operation.
While PRT done right makes sense in very many ways, and will make our societies behave more smoothly, we should keep in mind the frogs. We must revert or recreate our technologies to such that the planet can tolerate them. This is sustainable transport and this is hopefully everyday life within the decade.
TBD: make slide
We intend to sell a working practical solution that integrates well with existing transport technology. The product is a combination of track, vehicles and the service (operator) tying these together (more on next slide).
TBD: make slide
PRT from investor’s standpoint (need of finance, possible stages of exit)