This is so simple, it's brilliant! But of course!

I suspect it wouldn't be very practical. Special needs organizations would insist that the same ease of transportation be available for people who can't handle the physical stresses of a roller coaster.

And why not apply this to public transportation? Here in Southern California, it's next to impossible to get people out of their cars. Yes, I know this is impractical, but sheesh, if MetroRail was built as a series of roller coasters, they'd be lining up for miles to ride.

How about roller coaster public transportation -- a mix of subway and elevated train going around loops on its speedy way between the neighborhoods of your city?

I was visiting a nearby amusement park last weekend when I started thinking, why not combine the excitement of a roller coaster with the daily commute to and from work? This might even be deserving of a new idea thread.

Just think about it...a train lurches forward out of Hennepin Station, an underground roller coaster station in downtown Minneapolis. "Next stop: Uptown," a voice booms through the tunnel. After a couple quick twists, the train shoots straight up in the air, goes around a loop in a local park, and dives right back underground, seconds later coming to a stop at Uptown Station, also of the subway variety. The harnesses pop up in the same motion as compartments under the seats open up, where valuables that can't be secured to your person are kept for the ride. A few people get off the train, more get on, and a few seconds later the harnesses come down, compartments close, and the train surges forward again. "Next stop: Lyn-Lake," the voice booms. This track is a short but direct half-mile ride, during which the train makes a 360º twist upside-down and then right-side up again. After Lyn-Lake, the ride continues on to many other stops including the Mall of America, the airport, downtown St. Paul, along the Mississippi river, underneath the university, and right back to Hennepin Station.

It's realistic. It could be done. Problem is, I don't have the money nor the time to make it happen. Any billionaires out there who might be interested in developing this idea ??

Another idea...Worlds of Fun in Kansas City is built directly above a giant underground limestone mine, owned by the SAME company, Hunt Midwest, that owns Worlds of Fun! I don't understand why they haven't quarried out a tunnel for a new roller coaster to dive down into the mine, go around corners in the mine at breakneck speed, and emerge at a different point in the park. The only drawbacks I can think of offhand are cost, and the sudden temperature differential between the cool underground and the often hot outdoors which may cause some to become sick.

Several Disneyland attractions were in fact conceived and promoted as models for public transportation -- the Monorail, PeopleMover and Skyway, for instance. They're only models though. The park only takes up a single large city block, and the costs really go up when you try to expand the same concept to a citywide scale. Not to mention the maintenance expense -- no matter how crowded the park gets, the rides just don't take the same kind of persistent abuse and vandalism that any public transit has to weather. Not that I don't think it would be really supercool to ride something fun to work; I just wish there were more eccentric billionaires wandering around to fund that sort of thing. Along with big bubble domes over the cities and silver jumpsuits for everyone.

As to the use of coasters & such for transport within a park, they do a bit of that in some parks -- the Disneyland Skyway, for instance, went almost halfway across the park, and of course the Dland railroad goes all the way around with several stops. If I recall correctly (which gets less likely with each passing year), there's a log flume sort of thing you can ride from one part of Magic Mountain to another.

One minor reason parks don't do more of this is the matter of theming, or even naming, a ride to fit both of its endpoints as well as any territory it passes on the way. The Skyway looked fine on the kitsch-hypermodern turf of Tomorrowland, but at the Fantasyland end it looked like a quaint faux-Swiss chalet being invaded by very orderly aliens.

There's also the ride's footprint to consider -- every square foot of land (and linear foot of track) in an amusement park is either generating revenue, attracting visitors, or sitting there costing loads and loads of money. So rather than take up all the ground space from A to B, most transport rides are designed to pass overhead -- which means that either the transport has to be planned and constructed in tandem with several other structures (making it harder to alter any of them later), or built around existing ones. In either case, it's more difficult and expensive than starting with a small defined plot of ground and designing a ride to fit into it.

And of course, parks aren't all that eager to shell out all those operating and maintenance costs just to move their customers rapidly *past* all their shops, arcades and food spots, especially if they're not going to be let out anywhere near whatever spending points do catch their eye. And not many are going to catch anyone's eye if they're speeding past at coaster speeds! In related news, parks really really hope that by the time you're tired of walking, it will largely be because you're carrying around several large sacks of merchandise -- the sort of baggage you don't want to carry on a thrill ride.

And finally, the biggest reason -- the "something" you might be missing -- why transport rides are usually slower, more sedate and generally un-coasterlike: nearly all visitors to any theme park are families with children. And at the end of a long hot summer day of tramping around the park, when you're carrying a three-year-old who has, on falling asleep, turned into a lump of solid lead, you really *don't* want to be told that the quickest way back to the main gates is to ride the Wild Lightning Zinger.

Not to dump on your idea -- I think it's a cool notion and it's something I'd like to see more parks incorporate into their overall planning -- but these are just a few of the reasons why they usually don't.

Actually, this a roller coaster is as close to a perfect transportation system as is possible (if the terrain is flat). Check out my sig for Jan 1996 at: http://loebner.net/signature-file.html

All stations are elevated at the same height. The tracks comprise a loop with the stations strung along them.

Trains/trams roll down from a station (cars need no motors) roll on level to the approach to next station, roll up to next station (cars need no brakkes)

The cars will _not_ roll all the way up (energy losses due to friction), but a chain can pull them up to the station (energy input to make up for frictional losses). A train being pulled into the station pushes out a train already in the station, then waits until the next train pushes it out in its turn.

The idea is scalable:Long range (Main to Fla) A drop of 1300 feet will result in a velocity of 200 mph. This exceeds AMTRAK's wildest dreams. A train every 5 minutes, say.

Short range - A station at every (every other?)street intersection with perhaps a 10 foot drop. A train every 30 seconds, say.

There is no need for the ride to be "thrilling." A descent down a gradual incline will result in the same velocity at the bottom as a straight drop (although it will take longer) The velocity at the bottom depends only on the height of the drop.