Beam networks can be fitted into the city environment in a number of ways. Figure 1:3 shows one example, schematically sketched for an inner-city grid of streets in an existing city, between the downtown and inner suburbs. Motorcars will be assumed to have access to two-way streets in both north/south and east/west directions, with traffic lights in every intersection. As a consequence, the land is inefficiently used, and most of the time the traffic does not flow. To create intersections in separate planes is not realistic. To install one-way beams along these streets would be relatively straightforward (figure 1:4). If the main flows are directed between the downtown and the suburbs during peak traffic hours, it would be natural to position the beam routes as in this figure, with traffic in the opposite direction on every other street in north/south direction. All beams would be in the same plane, i.e. on equal height above the ground. Free vertical space between street level and the underside of the biggest beamcars would be at the most 4.5 meters (i.e. 15 feet). This solution requires that the east/west beam traffic does not cut across the north/south beam traffic. This requirement makes for extended travel routes for the east-west traffic, in our example. For instance, assume that a car is to travel from point A to point B. It would then have to travel the route indicated (the blue line), which is certainly not a bee-line. The lower part of figure 1:4 shows a close-up of one of these intersections. Tying these together would thus look like the illustration below. These are not proper intersections. They cannot be, while keeping the beams on the same level above the ground. The beamcar has the choice of turning right or left (depending on which beam it travels on) or going straight ahead, but it does not have the choice of either turning left or right. The main part of real beam-traffic routes planned so far in the world are one-way. Figure 1:1 In order to, in the long run, liberate half of the streets from all beam vehicle traffic, one could instead put two-way beams on every other street (i.e. those streets indicated by a, c and e respectivelly 1, 3 and 5 in figure 1:5). The streets indicated by green would then be free from beam traffic. The supporting poles would be placed in the middle of the streets, and protected by refuges or crash protections. The beams have capacity to carry about three times the amount of travelers that are ordinarily handled by the vehicles down on the streets. The cost of installing two-way beams would come to about 70 % of the cost of one-way beams (figure 1:4). But there would then be some complications. The beams would have to be separated into at least two levels at the intersections. The beams going in a north-south direction would have to be one level higher up than the east-west beams, or vice versa. If one wants to switch from travelling north/south to travelling east/west, one would automatically change altitude. This is done by the beams' sloping up or down while turning at the intersection.

Figure 1:3 Figure 1:4 Figure 1:5

An interesting alternative to figure 1:4 above is if there is space to move the beams sideways, allowing beamcars to travel straight across (more or less) left-right, as in the illustration to the right (figure 1:7). Parks, for instance, would allow this, and in such instances one could remove the beams marked dark blue. Houses with balconies on the second floor (H in the figure) would also allow for this, and houses that don´t occupy a whole city block. In these cases it would not be wise to remove the "ordinary" beams, however (A in figure 1:7), because the beams B could (and should) be used as stops, and stopping beamcars would of course temporarily impede thru-traffic.

Figure 1:7

One could, of course, entirely do away with the need for roundabout travel routes, if the beams were allowed to undulate in the fashion shown to the right. It would entail som encroachment on parks and maybe buildings. But if this solution could be incorporated into the affected buildings, with stops on second-floor terraces, this would in fact be advantageous as compared to the roundabout alternative of figure 1:4 above. Some kind of compromise between this and the foregoing alternative (with parallel beams) would be the best solution. The beams could then, cityblock-by-cityblock, be adapted to the situation at hand. City-planners need not decide on a complete, detailed traffic solution for the whole downtown area from the outset, it could be done a few blocks at a time, as the need arises.

Figure 1:8

alking distances from beam-free streets to nearest stop would of course be longer than from the streets where the beams are. Some extended travelling remain, since the vehicles cannot turn left at the intersections, but have to turn right and go around the block. One instance of travel route is between points A and B. In figure 1:10 the idea is that main routes (such as beams for 4-seat wide cabins) are placed on the outskirts of the built-up area to be serviced, and smaller beams (such as beams for 1 or 2 seat wide cabins) are placed inside the area. This would reduce the intrusion of beams to a minimum. The smaller beams could be either one-way or two-way and be distributed among the streets in an optimal fashion. In crowded downtown areas, there might be necessary to build trunkline beams along the streets in parallel to the ordinary beams.	Figure 1:10 Figure 1:11	Figure 1:11 gives an idea what this could look like. Three trunk lines carry through-traffic at relatively high speed. The other two beams (to the left) carry beamcars that will stop in the area, at local stations. In order not to impede other cars that are passing through without stopping, the cars that have to stop at the next station switch from beam nr. 2 to beam nr. 1. The vertical arrow under beam 1 indicates that on this beam the cars will stop and lower their cabins or carriages to the street level. When the car later gets under way again, it will switch to beam nr. 2, in order not to be impeded by cars stopping at the next block. So long as there are room for the guideways, one can always arrange them so that stopping vehicles never obstruct each other.

ity traffic planners, who are used to thinking in terms of motor vehicle traffic, should note that light beams on separate levels up in the air cost comparatively much less as compared to ordinary bridges for trains and motor vehicles. They are also less obtrusive.

Estetically-minded persons should likewise realize that new structure in the city are hardly noticed after a while. There has always been the opinion of some people that power lines, factory chimneys, windmills, etc. being planned are "ugly". But, once in place, they are hardly noticed. They become a part of the city landscape.

1. Ace of Diamonds eeting in the same traffic plane between two incomming and two outgoing eone-way beams. This arrangement could be used to construct a "four-leaf clover" consisting of 4 one-way loops, each going around for instance a city block. It could be further developed on a systematic basis, covering a whole city areas with a Ace of Diamonds-configuration in every streetcorner, as is shown in figure 2:11. It could also be further developed into a star pattern having 6, 8 or even more points to each star. There would have to be an even number of such points, with every other beam leading out from and every other leading into the star. With the normal grid-shaped arrangement of streets, the 4-point star would suffice.

Figure 2:11

2. Multi-level Ace of Diamonds wo Ace-of-Diamonds superimposed upon each other, but each on its own traffic level. Two incomming and two outgoing two-way beams. This could, in principle, be further developed along the lines described in point 1 above. In this two-way traffic arrangement, the beams on the upper diamond (the green ones) would have their height above ground increased. The vertical distance between the diamonds would have to be a bit more than the height of the biggest beam vehicles, including the folded vertical thickness of the elevator, if they have any elevators. 4 poles would be sufficient to support this crossing, as shown in figure 2:12. Before and after this crossing one could then use slooping beams in order to bring the traffic to ordinary height, about 4.5 meters up in the air.

Figure 2:12

3. Two superimposed Ace-of-Diamonds with maintained right-side traffic he problem with the model in figure 2:12 (provide that it is really a problem) is that this design is meant for a crossing between routes carrying right-side traffic and left-side traffic, respectively. One usually wants the traffic to flow in the same "orientation" on all routes. This means that one will have to adopt a solution similar to figure 2:14. In this example, the blue beams are one level higher than the green beams. Then, there is always the possibility that the traffic planners want to allow traffic straight ahead in the intersections.	To provide for this in the Ace-of-Diamonds model, one would need a three-level crossing. In figure 2:15, the blue beams are positioned above, and the red ones below the "normal plane", i.e. the red beams would be positioned at street level. The beams going straight ahead (indicated with green), stay on the normal height above the street; about 5 meters. This solution also means that the switch points (A in figure 2:15) have to be separated a bit from each other. High-speed trunklines need longer switching beams, to allow vehicles to adjust their speed to their allotted timeslots at the weaving points, and to give the weaving nodes sufficient time to allot timeslots. Thus, high-speed crossings need to be modified to resemble figure 2:16 below, where the extra beams for switching from one trunk beam to another can be made as long as is needed.	Figure 2:14 Figure 2:15

Figure 2:16

4. Two-level U-turn n a stretch of two-way beam traffic conduit one could make it possible for vehicles to double back by making U-turns. This could be implemented by the vehicle branching off to the right and follow a beam that rises to a level above the ordinary beam level. The vehicles then loops back and follow a sloping section of the beam that brings it back onto the other regular beam. This arrangement would require two additional supporting poles or other supporting structures (maybe extended supports from adjacent buildings). The radius of bending would be determined by: the lenght of the propulsion car the desired speed through the U-turn the pendulum effect, as the cabin is influenced by centrifugal force (picture below). Figure 2:18 The length of the propulsion car is no problem in this regard with FLYWAY®, since it has a narrow "waist" and is jointed. The steepness of the sloping beam would be decided be the vertical height of the largest vehicles and, of course, by the friction they could handle. The rectangles in the figure are the beams' supporting poles, as seen from above. The loop could of course be either simple or double, depending on requirements and on available space. Further aspects on city planning can be found on the web-page that deal with stations.

Figure 2:19

Figure 2:20