A Formidable Traffic Machine!

Boycott shampoo! Demand the REAL poo!

Anfang he endeavor when dimensioning the beam traffic system is that the transport function should be performed better than today, while at the same time the cost of resources (for land, material, labor and energy) should be considerably less, and the costs to the environment (in urban areas meaning crowding, noise, exhaust fumes and accidents) should also be considerably less than the situation at hand. It should also be a considerably better alternative in all these respects than all alternative measures that should otherwise have been taken, in order to meet the needs of the immediate and distant futures. These are not small claims. But the automated beamcarried traffic system has the capability to fulfill these goals.

It is indeed A Formidable Traffic Machine!

The cost of resources and environmental stress are treated on another web-page. This page will deal with the beam system's ability to carry out its assigned transportation job in an efficient manner. It contains some calculations as to the traffic capacity, but is essentially a non-technical page.
Let´s see, then, what is meant by an efficient transportation job.
For further reading:

The Capacity of Personal Rapid Transit Systems
The Capacity of Trunk Lines.

The Task of Transporting
Traffic Congestion on the Beams?
Passenger Flows and Allowable Speeds
Flow of people as function of the retardation in an emergency
(Tables with calculated passenger flows).

1. The Task of Transporting

Anfang he purpose of traffic is to move many people (or much goods) in shortest possible time, from point of departure to destination (for instance, moving people between their living quarters and their places of employment). The transport capacity could for instance be measured in how many people can pass through a cross-section of a certain route per hour. The travel time depends on the average speed the vehicles can keep in a certain network of traffic routes. High transport capacity and short travel time will be required if the beam-carried traffic is to be competitive.

Traffic separation
The beam-carried traffic turns out to be a formidable traffic machine, which - with a higher level of safety compared to road and rail traffic, at all weather conditions, - provides larger traffic flows and shorter travel times.
Both roads and railway tracks can be built with separation from opposing traffic (such as in tunnels underneath cities or with highways on bridges above the cities).
In such cases there will, like in the beam traffic, be no other kinds of traffic (such as pedestrians and bikers), no opposing traffic, and no crossing traffic on the travel route.

	he purpose of traffic is to move many people (or much goods) in shortest possible time, from point of departure to destination (for instance, moving people between their living quarters and their places of employment). The transport capacity could for instance be measured in how many people can pass through a cross-section of a certain route per hour. The travel time depends on the average speed the vehicles can keep in a certain network of traffic routes. High transport capacity and short travel time will be required if the beam-carried traffic is to be competitive.		Traffic separation The beam-carried traffic turns out to be a formidable traffic machine, which - with a higher level of safety compared to road and rail traffic, at all weather conditions, - provides larger traffic flows and shorter travel times. Both roads and railway tracks can be built with separation from opposing traffic (such as in tunnels underneath cities or with highways on bridges above the cities). In such cases there will, like in the beam traffic, be no other kinds of traffic (such as pedestrians and bikers), no opposing traffic, and no crossing traffic on the travel route.

But implementing this traffic separation is - because of the heavy vehicles and space-demanding highways - very expensive and quite cumbersome. And there is still the difficulty of handling sudden obstacles on the route without suffering personal and material damages. This is because human drivers suffer from delays in discovering and reacting to these obstacles, and also because of varying distances between the cars, varying braking capacity, and poor control of passenger safety. Extreme examples of this are the fogbanks and slippery roadbeds that sometimes occur in for instance Germany. These conditions indirectly cause mass collisions and great havoc on the highways, and traffic separation does not do much good in such cases.
The beam vehicles will:
discover obstacles within micro seconds, and
commence braking within milliseconds, and
will brake at a rate suited to the safety and well-being of the passengers (or freight) that is being carried.
So that takes care of those 3 problems! What this means for the transport capacity and to the speeds of transportation within and around urban areas is shown by the table further down on this web-page.

2. Traffic Congestion on the Beams?

When and why could congestions occur?
Well, there could be 3 reasons for it:

An unpassable beam segment, due to a broken-down vehicle blocking the way, or a mishap, natural disaster or sabotage.
Cars stopping on the beam to load/unload passengers or freight.

Too much traffic on converging beams, resulting in not enough time slots, or, in other words, the beam which the traffic converges upon cannot handle the traffic load.

The first item is more of a safety problem than a design problem. Affected cars would fall into 2 categories:

Traffic congestion as a result of weaving traffic
Figure 2:1

Cars that can pick another route will do so after some calculations.

Cars that have to retrace their route a bit to get off the affected beam segment will do so under the supervision of the local node computer, since this usually entails travelling against the designated direction. Once off the beam, the cars would fall into category 1 above.
This situation has been dealt with elsewhere.
The second item is very much a design problem. If these stops are getting to be too frequent, one would have to construct an additional beam, more or less in parallel to the thru-fare beam, which the cars could shunt into and stop without impeding other traffic.There are various ways that this could be done.

Anfang he third item has to do with capacity. If the condition is rarely occuring, such as at football games and the like, one could probably put up with it. If the congestion is regularly occuring, then:

build more beams to handle the traffic!
In the point-synchronous traffic system, the cars on the joining beams would be travelling in assigned timeslots after the booking points. If the growing queues grow beyond the booking points, the node computer would be aware of this (since it handles these timeslot assignments) and tell arriving cars in a general broadcast about the situation. Those cars would then make a re-evalution of their travel route on the basis of estimated time to pass through this shunt. This estimation would have to be based on the length of the queue between the booking point and the shunt, since the situation beyond the booking point cannot readily be appraised.
How, then, are the queues after the booking point handled? Well, there could be 2 scenarios:

After the shunt the traffic flows freely.
There is congestion also after the shunt.
In the first instance, the shunt itself is usually the bottleneck, because of the change-of-direction involved in going through a shunt. One wishes to avoid jerks, at least when hauling passengers. After the shunt, the cars would pick up speed again. This is illustrated in figure 2:2, where car A has to slow down because it will be going through a curve. Car B would not need to slow down, as it is going straight ahead. But car B might have to slow down anyway, because it is coming too close behind car A.

Altering travel direction in a diverging node
Figure 2:2
In this situation, the node would assign new timeslots to the cars, commensurate with half the speed allowed after the shunt, or the speed allowed to pass through the shunt, whichever is the lowest. The cars from the joining beams would alternate in passing through the shunt, as shown in the figure to the left, where the cars have been color-coded for illustration purposes.
In this situation it could happen that one queue dissappers but not the other. What then? Well, this situation would rectify itself automatically, because the existing queue would get monopoly on the shunt, whereupon a new queue would grow on the other beam, whereupon we would be back to the previous situation with 2 queues.
How do we handle a situation where there is a queue also after the shunt? In the same manner as the foregoing case, with a queue-speed of half that allowed after the shunt, except that this speed now is reduced. Reduced to what? Well, that would have to be reported by the next node, which is handling that queue.
There is one questionmark in regard to this. A weaving shunt (which is what we are talking about here) is a merger of 2 beams into one. But what if there are more shunts close together in rows, handled by the same node computer? Well, insofar as queues build up on those beams as well, each shunt would be handled in the manner described above, and as shown in the illustration. With many shunts closely after each other, one would thus have queues on different beams, moving at different speeds, depending on where each beam join the other and on the traffic situation on that particular spot. This might seem unfair, but this is the easiest and most logical way to handle queues, and this is how queues mostly are handled on the streets. If this leads to undesirable consequences, then that is an indication that the beam network is not well designed. Back to the drawing board!

In all three instances that could give rise to traffic congestion, one finds that the finer the mesh of the beam network the better. The more alternative routes that are available for any source - destination configuration, the more resilient the network becomes. The network is controlled by computers, and this is what computers are really good at, compared to humans; to quickly make complicated choices between a host of alternatives.

3. Passenger Flows and Allowable Speeds

How much traffic can a beam handle? Well, if we for the present confine our discussion to the handling of passengers, we find, after some thought, that the capacity is a function of
a) average speed and
b) the safety distance between the cars. The safety distance, in turn, is dictated by how fast the cars can decelerate in an emergency, without undue discomfort to the passengers. As for the speed, it will of course vary, due to the following circumstances:

Suburbs and outlying areas:

Maximum allowable speed has been set to about 140 km / hour (i.e. 90 miles / hour). This means that the beam vehicles will quickly outpace motor vehicles running on freeways parallel to the beam track. This ought to have a great psychological impact for the motorists' switching to beam-carried travel. This speed would apply also on trunk beams that carry traffic between distant places, such as between the central city and outlying suburbs.

Inner-city areas:

We have set the minimimum travel speed to not less than 20 km / hour (i.e. 12 miles / hour). This means that the radius of bending around streetcorners and in small roundabouts, the length of short sidebeams for stopping, exits to berthing sites, the angle of inclination on sloping beam segments, etc. should have such dimensions that the cars should be able to maintain this speed at such places. The maximum travel speed should be at least 60 km / hour (36 miles / hour). This would mean that the beam cars would pull away from the motorists even when there is free flow of traffic in the streets. The travel speed could be set to any value between these extremes, suitable to the circumstances. The system should be designed having such a capacity that it could be guaranteed to handle all normal traffic volumes without the vehicles piling up.

Anfang eam-carried vehicles are in the FLYWAY®-concept planned to have a passenger capacity for 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 15 and (maybe) 30 and 45 people respectively. The last two alternatives could be accomplished by coupling two and three 15-seat cars together. What size of vehicles will travel on particular routes will be determined by demand in the suburb in question and what hour of the day, etc. The system will always use vehicles that are most suited to the passenger demand everywhere, based on statistics that are always kept up-to-date. In the table below, the results are shown only for the smallest vehicles which takes 1 person, and for the largest vehicle, which takes 32 persons. Using the calculation method detailed below, one can easily figure out the corresponding numbers for all the vehicle sizes in between.

v = speed (meters per second)
a = acceleration or retardation (meter / s²)
r = reaction time (= 0.15 seconds for FlyWay)
(for a computerized system such as this, the reaction time is considerably shorter than for a human motorist)
L = the length of the car in meters
D = distance in meters between the center of two cars (see the figure)
T = distance in seconds between two cars
j = jerk (m/s³) at retardation, i.e. how the rate of retardation changes over time.
This is a so-called comfort factor,whose calculation has to be experimentally arrived at. Definition of distance between two beamcars
Figure 3:2

v = speed (meters per second) a = acceleration or retardation (meter / s²) r = reaction time (= 0.15 seconds for FlyWay) (for a computerized system such as this, the reaction time is considerably shorter than for a human motorist) L = the length of the car in meters D = distance in meters between the center of two cars (see the figure) T = distance in seconds between two cars j = jerk (m/s³) at retardation, i.e. how the rate of retardation changes over time. This is a so-called comfort factor,whose calculation has to be experimentally arrived at.	Figure 3:2

From this, we can derive the following equations:
1: T = D/v
2: D = v * r + (v²)/(2 * a) + (v * a)/(2 * j) + L
The first equation should be pretty obvious.
The second equation contains 4 terms.
Let's make a rough estimate of the relative importance of those terms.

Anfang he first term represents the reaction time. The vehicle could be commanded to stop, whereupon it would react within 0.05 seconds.
Or it could receive an alert from the car ahead, in case of accident. Then we would have to take into account the time it takes to generate the signal, as well as to transmit and receive it. This comes to about 0.10 seconds.
Or the vehicle could detect an object with one of its radars. The SwedeTrack vehicles might use one radar mounted on the propulsion vehicle inside the beam. The other radar would be mounted on the cabin or carriage. In this case the radar would look forward in the direction of travel, and would sweep sideways back and forth and also vertically, covering a certain "window" where obstacles would affect the beamcar. As there is sweep time involved, the reaction time would come to 0.15 seconds. This being the largest figure, it is the one we have used in our calculations. Further, let's assume a speed of 35 meters per second, which corresponds to 126 km/h.
horisontal & vertical scanning angles
Figure 3:3
The first term then comes to 5.25 meters.
The second term represents the distance covered before the car could be brought to a standstil, assuming that it could instantly apply the assigned retardation. In reality, it has to be modified by the third term.
We should be able to calculate with a retardation of 2 g, considering that these occurences are (or should be) exceptionally rare. 2 g then corresponds to 19.6 m/s², and the whole term comes to 31.22 meters.
The third term contains the jerk-factor. This is a comfort factor which is arbitrarily set to 12 m/s³, and it represents the change in the rate of retardation. As stated above, regarding the second term, the beamcar has to gradually increase its retardation from zero to the assigned retardation rate. This term thus comes to 28.61 meters in our example.
It should be noted that this factor would probably be set to infinite in an emergency-braking situation. These situations would be extremely rare, but they have to be taken into account. Thus, travelers and/or goods should be strapped in.
The fourth term in the equation is the length of the car. FLYWAYs largest suggested vehicle is almost 6 meters in length and takes at the most 15 passengers.

In this example we get:
D = 5.25 + 31.22 + 28.61 + 6 = 71 meters
for "orderly" braking, and
D = 5.25 + 31.22 + 6 = 43 meters
for emergency braking (the third term being omitted). We can thus see that the second and third terms dominate. If we were to interconnect, say, 3 cars to form a train, we would thus almost tripple the capacity on the beam. But there would also be three times as many casualities if something happens. This matter of coupling cars together is further explained on another webpage.
The second term above calculates for a so-called "brickwall stop". This means that if the car ahead would meet with an "immovable object", the car following behind would still be able to stop in time, on those 31 meters (= about 100 feet).
Let´s see how these terms each influence how many people that would be transported in a beam per hour for different speeds. In table 1 below, we will assume that there are 1.25 persons per vehicle (which is the usual rate for motorcars in Western countries).
We will also, for table 1, assume that:
a = 20.0, r = 0.15 and j = 12.
One might think that the fourth term (the length of the vehicle) would not much influence the capacity of the beam for various speeds. But compare the last 3 columns in table 1! There, we have assumed the length of the car to be 0, 3.5 and 6 meters respectively.

	In this example we get: D = 5.25 + 31.22 + 28.61 + 6 = 71 meters for "orderly" braking, and D = 5.25 + 31.22 + 6 = 43 meters for emergency braking (the third term being omitted). We can thus see that the second and third terms dominate. If we were to interconnect, say, 3 cars to form a train, we would thus almost tripple the capacity on the beam. But there would also be three times as many casualities if something happens. This matter of coupling cars together is further explained on another webpage. The second term above calculates for a so-called "brickwall stop". This means that if the car ahead would meet with an "immovable object", the car following behind would still be able to stop in time, on those 31 meters (= about 100 feet).		Let´s see how these terms each influence how many people that would be transported in a beam per hour for different speeds. In table 1 below, we will assume that there are 1.25 persons per vehicle (which is the usual rate for motorcars in Western countries). We will also, for table 1, assume that: a = 20.0, r = 0.15 and j = 12. One might think that the fourth term (the length of the vehicle) would not much influence the capacity of the beam for various speeds. But compare the last 3 columns in table 1! There, we have assumed the length of the car to be 0, 3.5 and 6 meters respectively.

Table 1: Transport capacity for various speeds

Speed (km/h)	Speed (m/sec)	First Term	Second Term	Third Term	Distance betw. vehicles (meter)	Time betw. vehicles (seconds)	Persons/h Length of car = 0 m	Persons/h Length of car = 3.5 m	Persons/h Length of car = 6 m
10	2.78	0.42	0.19	2.31	2.92	1.05	4 274	1 946	1 401
20	5.56	0.83	0.77	4.63	6.23	1.12	4 010	2 568	2 043
30	8.33	1.25	1.74	6.94	9.93	1.19	3 776	2 792	2 354
40	11.11	1.67	3.09	9.26	14.01	1.26	3 568	2 855	2 499
50	13.89	2.08	4.82	11.57	18.48	1.33	3 382	2 844	2 553
60	16.67	2.50	6.94	13.89	23.33	1.40	3 214	2 795	2 557
70	19.44	2.92	9.45	16.20	28.57	1.47	3 062	2 728	2 531
80	22.22	3.33	12.35	18.52	34.20	1.54	2 924	2 653	2 488
90	25.00	3.75	15.63	20.83	40.21	1.61	2 798	2 574	2 435
100	27.78	4.17	19.29	23.15	46.60	1.68	2 682	2 495	2 376
110	30.56	4.58	23.34	25.46	53.39	1.75	2 576	2 417	2 315
120	33.33	5.00	27.78	27.78	60.56	1.82	2 477	2 342	2 254
130	36.11	5.42	32.60	30.09	68.11	1.89	2 386	2 269	2 193
140	38.89	5.83	37.81	32.41	76.05	1.96	2 301	2 200	2 133
150	41.67	6.25	43.40	34.72	84.38	2.03	2 222	2 134	2 075

Anfang rom the table above, one can draw some interesting conclusions:

The fourth term (length of the vehicle) must not be ignored when figuring optimal speed. If the length is set to zero, the result gets pretty weird; the slower the speed, the more efficient it gets.

Optimal speed increases as the cars get bigger, even assuming the same number of passengers in the cars (in our example 1.25 passengers).

One can still note how relatively low the optimal speed is; 40 and 60 km/hour in our example. This result is not affected by how many passengers there are in the cars, as long as all cars have the same number of passengers.

Anfang t can be shown, however, by similar calculations, that optimal speed is even lower for manually driven road vehicles. The reaction time of manually driven vehicles is longer (0.8 seconds versus 0.15 for automatic vehicles) and motorists cannot brake as hard as the beam vehicles (0.5 g versus 2.0 g). Keep in mind that we are talking about emergency brakings that normally should not happen in the beam traffic system, but in the road traffic they are rather common!
The 2 diagrams below show how many persons can safely be transported in 1 hour in one traffic lane and on one beam, respectivelly, past a given point, as a function of the average speeds of the vehicles. Each vehicle is assumed to carry 1.25 persons.

Transport capacity vs speed for automatic beam vehicles
Figure 3:6
The top diagram shows the beam traffic vehicles, using these assumptions:
Reaction time = 0.15 seconds, emergency braking = 2 g, jerk = 1,2 g/s, length of vehicle = 3.5 meters.
The bottom diagram shows the road traffic vehicles, using these assumptions:
Reaction time = 0.80 seconds, emergency braking = 0.5 g, jerk = 1,2 g/s, length of vehicle = 4.5 meters.
One can see that beam vehicles under these assumptions would have a higher optimal speed and transport more people at the optimal speed (and at any other speed as well).

Transport capacity vs speed for road vehicles
Figure 3:7

Units used in Table 1 below:

km/h: Speed in kilometers/hour.

p, / vehicle: Number of passengers per beam vehicle.

L, m: Length of vehicle in meters.

g = 9.81 m / s² The earth's acceleration at sea level.
This is used as acomparison factor when measuring acceleration and retardation.

Maximum brake = 0.2 g: Seated passengers will suffer insignificant (if any) injuries without having to take any particular safety precautions.

Maximum brake = 0.5 g: Passengers with safety belts will suffer insignificant (if any) injuries.

Maximum braking = 2 g: Passengers with the back of their chairs in the direction of travel will suffer insignificant (if any) injuries.

T, seconds: Time distance between vehicles

P, / hour: People flow through a crossection, in persons per hour.

v_max, km/h: Highest permissible speed, km / hour.

v_min , km/h: Lowest permissible speed, km / hour.

	Units used in Table 1 below:
km/h:	Speed in kilometers/hour.
p, / vehicle:	Number of passengers per beam vehicle.
L, m:	Length of vehicle in meters.
g = 9.81 m / s²	The earth's acceleration at sea level. This is used as acomparison factor when measuring acceleration and retardation.
Maximum brake = 0.2 g:	Seated passengers will suffer insignificant (if any) injuries without having to take any particular safety precautions.
Maximum brake = 0.5 g:	Passengers with safety belts will suffer insignificant (if any) injuries.
Maximum braking = 2 g:	Passengers with the back of their chairs in the direction of travel will suffer insignificant (if any) injuries.
T, seconds:	Time distance between vehicles
P, / hour:	People flow through a crossection, in persons per hour.
v_max, km/h:	Highest permissible speed, km / hour.
v_min , km/h:	Lowest permissible speed, km / hour.

4. Flow of people as function of the retardation in an emergency

The following 4 tables use the requirement above of a "brickwall" stop ability.

Table 2: Comparison between inner-city and suburban traffic capacity

			Suburban Areas and Trunk Lines				Inner-city Areas
Width of Vehicle	p/vehicle L, m	Max. brake	T (sec.)	P,/ hour	v_max (km/h)	v_min (km/h)	T (sec.)	P,/ hour	v_max (km/h)	v_min (km/h)
1 person per row; 0.7 m	1 person; 1.6 m	0.2 g	10	360	143.4	0.6	4.3	837	60.6	1.4
		0.5 g	4	900	142.5	1.5	1.8	2 000	61.4	3.4
		2.0 g	1	3 600	138.0	6.0	0.52	6 923	61.4	13.5
4 persons per row; 2.8 m	32 persons; 10.0 m	0.2 g	10	11 520	140.3	3.7	4.8	24 000	60.6	8.6
		0.5 g	4	28 098	138.2	9.4	2.4	48 000	67.1	19.3
		2.0 g	1.2	96 000	134.2	38.6	1.9	60 632	253.1*	20.5

* This alternative would not be used in the inner city.

Table 3: Minimum time distance and maximum person flow

Width of vehicle (meters)	Number of passengers per vehicle and length of vehicle	Max. retardation	Min. time distance betw. vehicles (seconds)	Max. person-flow (persons /hour)	Optimal speed (km/hour)	Distance betw. vehicles (meters)
1 person 0.7 m.	1 person 1.6 m.	0.2 g.	1.26 sec.	2 857	9.1	3.2
		0.5 g.	0.80 sec.	4 500	14.4	3.2
		2.0 g.	0.40 sec.	9 000	18.0	3.2
	3 persons 3.4 m.	0.2 g.	1.84 sec.	5 870	13.3	6.8
		0.5 g.	1.17 sec.	9 231	21.1	6.8
		2.0 g.	0.58 sec.	18 621	41.8	6.8
2 persons 1.4 m.	4 persons 3.2 m.	0.2 g.	1.79 sec.	5 517	12.9	6.4
		0.5 g.	1.13 sec.	12 743	20.3	6.4
		2.0 g.	0.57 sec.	25 263	41.0	6.4
	10 persons 5.9 m.	0.2 g.	2.61 sec.	13 793	18.8	11.8
		0.5 g.	1.65 sec.	21 818	29.7	11.8
		2.0 g.	0.82 sec.	43 902	59.0	11.8
4 persons 2.8 m.	16 persons 6.4 m.	0.2 g.	2.53 sec.	22 767	18.2	12.8
		0.5 g.	1.60 sec.	36 000	28.8	12.8
		2.0 g.	0.80 sec.	72 000	57.6	12.8
	32 persons 10.0 m.	0.2 g.	3.16 sec.	36 456	22.8	20.0
		0.5 g.	2.00 sec.	57 600	36.0	20.0
		2.0 g.	1.00 sec.	115 200	72.0	20.0

Table 4: Person-flows at maximal speeds for FLYWAY in the outer suburbs

Width of vehicle (meters)	Number of pass- engers per vehicle and length of vehicle	Max. retar- dation	Time distance betw. vehicles (seconds)	Person- flow (persons /hour)	Max speed (km/ hour)	Min speed (km/ hour)	Average speed (km/ hour)	Max distance betw. vehicles (meters)	Min distance betw. vehicles (meters)	Average distance betw. vehicles (meters)
1 person 0.7 m.	1 person 1.6 m.	0.2 g.	10	360	143.4	0.6	72.0	398.4	1.6	200.0
		0.5 g.	4	900	142.5	1.5	72.0	158.4	1.6	80.0
		2.0 g.	1	3 600	138.0	6.0	72.0	38.3	1.7	20.0
	3 persons 3.4 m.	0.2 g.	10	1 080	142.8	1.2	72.0	396.6	3.4	200.0
		0.5 g.	4	2 700	140.9	3.1	72.0	156.5	3.5	80.0
		2.0 g.	1.1	9 818	146.4	12.0	79.2	44.7	3.7	24.2
2 persons 1.4 m.	4 persons 3.2 m.	0.2 g.	10	1 440	142.8	1.2	72.0	396.8	3.2	200.0
		0.5 g.	4	3 600	141.1	2.9	72.0	156.7	3.3	80.0
		2.0 g.	1.1	13 091	147.1	11.3	79.2	45.0	3.4	24.2
	10 persons 5.9 m.	0.2 g.	10	3 600	141.8	2.2	72.0	394.0	6.0	200.0
		0.5 g.	4	9 000	138.5	5.5	72.0	153.9	6.1	80.0
		2.0 g.	1.1	32 727	135.9	22.5	79.2	41.5	6.9	24.2
4 persons 2.8 m.	16 persons 6.4 m.	0.2 g.	10	5 760	141.7	2.3	72.0	393.5	6.5	200.0
		0.5 g.	4	14 400	138.0	6.0	72.0	153.3	6.7	80.0
		2.0 g.	1.1	52 364	133.6	24.8	79.2	40.8	7.6	24.2
	32 persons 10.0 m.	0.2 g.	10	11 520	140.3	3.7	72.0	389.7	10.3	200.0
		0.5 g.	4	28 098	138.2	9.4	73.8	157.4	10.7	84.1
		2.0 g.	1.2	96 000	134.2	38.6	86.4	44.7	12.9	28.8

Table 5: Person-flows at maximal speeds for FLYWAY in the inner suburbs

Width of vehicle (meters)	Number of pass- engers per vehicle and length of vehicle	Max. retar- dation	Time distance betw. vehicles (seconds)	Person- flow (persons /hour)	Max speed (km/ hour)	Min speed (km/ hour)	Average speed (km/ hour)	Max distance betw. vehicles (meters)	Min distance betw. vehicles (meters)	Average distance betw. vehicles (meters)
1 person 0.7 m.	1 person 1.6 m.	0.2 g.	4.3	837	60.6	1.4	31.0	72.3	1.6	37.0
		0.5 g.	1.8	2 000	61.4	3.4	32.4	30.7	1.7	16.2
		2.0 g.	0.52	6 923	61.4	13.5	37.4	8.9	2.0	5.4
	3 persons 3.4 m.	0.2 g.	4.4	2 455	60.4	2.9	31.7	73.9	3.6	38.7
		0.5 g.	1.9	5 684	61.2	7.2	34.2	32.3	3.8	18.1
		2.0 g.	0.75	14 400	88.0	20.0	54.0	18.3	4.2	11.3
2 persons 1.4 m.	4 persons 3.2 m.	0.2 g.	4.4	3 273	60.6	2.7	31.7	74.1	3.3	38.7
		0.5 g.	1.9	7 579	61.7	6.7	34.2	32.6	3.5	18.1
		2.0 g.	0.7	20 571	80.1	20.7	50.4	15.6	4.0	9.8
	10 persons 5.9 m.	0.2 g.	4.5	8 000	59.7	5.1	32.4	74.6	6.4	40.5
		0.5 g.	2.0	18 000	59.1	12.9	36.0	32.8	7.2	20.0
		2.0 g.	1.2	30 000	152.8	20.0	86.4	50.9	6.7	28.8
4 persons 2.8 m.	16 persons 6.4 m.	0.2 g.	4.6	12 522	60.8	5.5	33.1	77.7	7.0	42.3
		0.5 g.	2.1	27 429	62.3	13.3	37.8	36.3	7.8	22.1
		2.0 g.	1.3	44 308	167.4	19.8	93.6	60.4	7.2	33.8
	32 persons 10.0 m.	0.2 g.	4.8	24 000	60.6	8.6	34.6	80.7	11.4	46.1
		0.5 g.	2.4	48 000	67.1	19.3	43.2	44.7	12.9	28.8
		2.0 g.	1.9	60 632	253.1	20.5	136.8	133.6	10.8	72.2

Conclusions, suburban areas

wiveling the chairs so that the back faces the direction of travel would make a great improvement in the beam's traffic capacity. These kind of seats would require more space, however, so it is not certain that they are a good idea. However, using the biggest vehicle (the one that will take 32 people) this would increase the passenger flow to 96 000 people per hour, which is about double the capacity that can be attained with a ordinary subway.	This swivelling of the chair only needs to be used on the beam links that have the highest speeds and probably only during peak traffic hours. At other times, the cars will be further apart, even though the speed would be the same as during peak hours. One scenario would then be to have the chairs automatically swivel in position with their backs in the travel direction, as soon as the car exceeds a certain speed. When the cars slows down or stops, the chairs would swivel back again.

During times of low traffic intensity no special safety arrangements would need to be made (such as safety belts and swivelling chairs) and yet the traffic flow at any link could be kept at about 11 500 persons / hour. This would equal the capacity of a 4-lane freeway full of motor cars during peak hours, at which time the cars would move at lower speeds than the beam cars, because of crowding and traffic lights.

Conclusions, Inner-City Areas.

A strategy for the inner city could be to during peak traffic hours always travel with safety belts . Using only the small 1-person vehicle one could then arrive at a capacity of 2 000 people per hour and travel direction for a certain link. This is almost the capacity of an undisturbed lane of motorcars.
In reality, the lane would not be undisturbed, as there are always intersections,
pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, thus considerably lowering the average travelling speed for street vehicles.
Using the largest vehicles one could attain a capacity of 48 000 people an hour and travel direction for one link and above the ground! This would be sufficient for any city in the world, even for Bangkok in Thailand!

Anfang general conclusion is also that large vehicles on the beams are only motivated in order to stretch the capacity on the links. If economical calculations show that it would make better sense to increase the car-carrying capacity of the network, then those large vehicles would practically never be needed, except at special, crowdgathering events, such as football games. The obvious way to make this calculation is to always (even during peak traffic hours) allow people to have a choice to, at a higher price, travel in smaller, individually booked vehicles rather than in the larger time-table bound vehicles, and then measure the resulting backlog (if any) of traffic that people are willing to put up with in order to get more travel comfort. One should not forget the factors that influence peoples' choice here; it is not primarily one of privacy, but rather one of getting to one's destination as speedily as possible. Ye olde transportation philosopher

general conclusion is also that large vehicles on the beams are only motivated in order to stretch the capacity on the links. If economical calculations show that it would make better sense to increase the car-carrying capacity of the network, then those large vehicles would practically never be needed, except at special, crowdgathering events, such as football games.	The obvious way to make this calculation is to always (even during peak traffic hours) allow people to have a choice to, at a higher price, travel in smaller, individually booked vehicles rather than in the larger time-table bound vehicles, and then measure the resulting backlog (if any) of traffic that people are willing to put up with in order to get more travel comfort. One should not forget the factors that influence peoples' choice here; it is not primarily one of privacy, but rather one of getting to one's destination as speedily as possible.

Copyright © 2004, SwedeTrack System.	Last Updated: 2007-01-17	Webmaster	This site is maintained by Johnson Consulting