Where to Erect the Beams

The traffic conduit consists, in the case of beam traffic systems, of a narrow steel beam. The beams can come in two or three dimensions, for vehicles with different width and weight. Light and narrow vehicles could travel on those beams designed for heavier vehicles, but not the other way around. Adapting the beamsizes to the vehicles that are supposed to travel on them will of course save on beam material. Broad and/or heavy vehicles need not, or cannot, travel everywhere, and it is thus wasteful to build stronger beams than required at such places. We will here briefly look at where and how beam systems in general and the FLYWAY® system in particular would be of best use. So far as "general" is concerned, we will only look at suspended systems. But planning for beam networks are dealth with more thoroughly on other web-pages on this site. This page will only provide an overview, and consists mainly of illustrations that shows what various ideas would look like.		The picture at left, for instance, is not as far-fetched as it might look. This design could well complement crowded elevators in high-rise buildings, speeding executives directly to their upper-floor offices. Not only that, these beams could also serve as speedy evacuation routes, should the elevators be blocked by fire in the building! Skyscrapers are problematic for fire-fighters; they cannot reach the upper floors with their hoses, nor evacuate people. But with the aid of these beams, they could. How travelers gain access to the beamcars Planning for narrow streets in old downtowns Entering buildings List of priorities Conclusions

The beam vehicles can handle both passengers and goods, but the emphasis is on the conveyance of people. Travelers could enter and leave the vehicles according to 6 different scenarios: a) The cars travel at street level (figure 10). b) The cars lower themselves to the ground with the aid of elevators (figure 11). c) The beams dip down to just above streetlevel at the berthing sites as in figure 12 below.

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Evaluating these 6 alternatives, one can say that: Alternative a is the cheapest and simplest solution, and should put passengers leery of travelling at heights at ease. But it does not take advantage of biggest arguments for using beams; that they remove the barrier effect. Alternative b is the smoothest of all solutions and, next after a and c, the cheapest. This is the FLYWAY® implementation. Alternative c is not a bad solution at all. Extra beams for stopping will be needed anyhow, so why not have them lowered to the street level? Alternative d is an excellent solution, when it can be used. But how often is that?

Alternative e is the most awkward and expensive solution. And yet; this is one that practically all monorails and PRT-systems are using. Why? Lack of imagination? Fear of "unconventional" solutions? Or; the manufacturers get to earn more money, the more expensive an implementation is? The taxpayers and/or the travelers will be paying, so what does it matter if the costs are much higher than they need to be? But, granted, an interface with existing railways is desirable, and if those platforms are too narrow to accomodate the beamcars, the depicted solution is viable. Alternative f is the option for brave-hearted architects who can get the ear of the boss and the customer.

2. Planning for narrow streets in old Downtowns

Have you visited Athens, Greece? Many streets, especially in the central part of this city, are so narrow that motor vehicle traffic cannot get through if people park their cars on both sides of the streets. And park they do. On both sides of the street. But the drivers solve this particular problem by parking on the sidewalks. Thus, pedestrians have to walk in the streets. And the traffic has to adapt their speed to the leisurely pace of these pedestrians. Figure 2:1 This problem is not unique for Athens. Our old cities were built long before the advent of the motor car (the photo is from New York City). Many cities in the world, such as Athens in Greece, Havanna (Cuba), New Orleans (Louisiana), etc. can (still) boast of quaint, downtown areas with old buildings and narrow, winding streets, with their special atmosphere that usually attracts many tourists. But ordinary traffic cannot get through, and most city planners solve this problem by tearing down buildings, broaden some of the streets, letting traffic in and building parking garages for the "new" cars. And what happens then to the quaint atmosphere? It get´s drowned in traffic noise, pollution and the subdivision of the town into smaller areas, divided by these new streets. This is a type of situation where the beam traffic system could be especially helpful! But it has to be the FLYWAY® type of system, where cars could be lowered to street level. Costs aside, there simply are not room in these streets for raised train platforms, 4 meters up in the air, with staircases and lifts! Consider a typical old downtown area, as the one we have drawn to the right (This is just an example of how it could look). The top picture depict the city as it was built, probably before the arrival of motorcars. The middle picture shows conventional planning, to let the traffic in, and through. The red denotes wide streets with noisy thru-traffic, that completely disrupts the quiet neighborhood atmosphere. The bottom drawing shows how access and good communication could be provided with elevated beamcars. In this way, most motorcar traffic could be restricted, leaving the streets to pedestrians and bikers. And the beamtraffic system would be the savior of the old downtown atmosphere.

Figure 2:2

Narrow streets are usually not hemmed in by buildings everywhere. Where space is not sufficient for parallel stops, one would have to use on-line stops. But these could be mixed with parallel stops, where space permits, such as small plazas, and where a building has been torn down.	The picture at right shows such an example, and the idea is that parallel stops would allow the cars to stay a bit longer, to adjust for time-tables and loading of luggage, activities that would not be permitted at the on-line stops.	Figure 2:4

hat about supports for the beams in these narrow streets? Well, there probably won´t be space for free-standing poles. In some places, one could encrouch a bit of the sidewalk, as shown in figure 2:11. But a better solution is, of course, if the housewalls were firm enough to support attachments, as in figure 2:12. Otherwise, one would have to build the poles wholly or partly into the walls, as shown by figure 2:13. In this case, on would gain stability by using a pair of poles in opposite buildings. This arrangement could then also be used for two-way traffic, if desirable and provided that the street is wide enough, as shown in figure 2:14. Along narrow streets with higher buildings, the beams can be used in a way that street traffic cannot. Traffic capacity can be extended vertically as shown in figure 2:16. The streets might be somewhat darker, to the extent that beams and beamcars block out the sun. This has to be weighted against the advantage of being able to provide un-interrupted transportation which, at the same time, leaving the streets free for other uses than thru-traffic. Figure 2:11 Figure 2:13 Figure 2:12

Figure 2:14 Figure 2:15 Figure 2:16

3. Entering Buildings

Through automatic doors in the walls, or through tunnels underneath the ground, the beams could easily enter: Shopping malls Office buildings Apartment buildings Railway stations Airport terminals and, of course, other types of buildings. The improvement in convencience for shoppers, workers, tenants and travelers would be considerable, as compared to today. The improvement in handling of luggage and freight would likewise be considerable, and much time could be saved.	It could well be argued that people will be even lazier than today, but that is really beside the point! The real gain, and added justification for building beam traffic systems, is the improvement on todays transport systems, such as cars, lifts, conveyor belts, escalators, etc. We have already developed a lazy lifestyle; there is no sense in not taking advantage of the possibilities that new technology offers. As shown on other pages, the beams could continue onto platforms of railway stations, and underneath the tarmac at airports, to the loading bays of the aircrafts.	Figure 3:1 Figure 3:2

4. List of Priorities

Picture contributed by Hans Kylberg on VisuLogik.

As an overview, then, check this list of places where the FLYWAY cars could create better communications and a better environment: Easing traffic congestions. Along narrow streets that won´t allow regular traffic (as exemplified above). In and across big city parks. In crowded downtown areas. Connecting airport terminals with each others, and with airport parking garages. Connecting industrial areas with railway stations and airports. Connecting local public transport systems with railway stations and airports. Servicing convention and exhibition centers, as well as sports arenas. Where quiet traffic is desired, such as hospitals and residential areas. Connecting buildings within hospitals and university campuses (which can get quite spacious). Providing easy access to shopping malls. These are usually built at out-of-the-way places that requires most shoppers to come by motorcar.

5. Conclusions

he individually booked vehicles would travel directly to their destinations if so desired, without detours and unnecessary stops. The bigger vehicles that run according to schedules would, on the other hand, be a cheaper alternative. Because they are smaller than buses and trams, they would have to travel at shorter intervalls in order to maintain the same passenger throughput as bigger vehicles. The advantage of this is considerably reduced waiting times for travelers, provided there are empty seats in arriving cars. The traffic intensity could be monitored and controlled so that number of available seats is always slightly higher than the expected number of travellers at all times.

Depending, among other things, upon the negative effects on the city environment, the conduits could be both-ways or one-way (just as some narrow city streets are made one-way). One-way traffic routes for vehicles with a width of just one seat would require a very modest space along a narrow city street,

whereas a double set of beams for two-way traffic, and maybe capable of carrying vehicles 4 seats wide would require more space. In this latter case, it would be equal to two bus lanes. There is also reason to regard the beam system installation in a time perspective. Within 3 years one could install for instance the existing beam traffic system called SIPEM from Siemens in order to gain experience. Within 4 - 12 years time one could install various systems derived from the SIPEM system. Within 10 - 15 years the costs could probably be considerably lowered by reason of industrial assembly-line produktion.