As an inexpensive, flexible alternative to the perennial monorail, I'd love to try a set of suspended tubes for bicycles.
They could run along the right-of-way of existing streets That would help keep costs and impact down.
They could be relatively level from hilltop to hilltop, because the towers would carry a lot less dynamic load than they would for a train, so could be taller if needed to keep level That would make the weight of the bicycle (and rider!) a lot less a factor in their speed.
They could be enclosed and lighted That would eliminate the need for bike lights and rain gear and speed-robbing tread on the bike tires. Not to mention eliminating snow and headwinds.
They could be very smooth-floored, and kept clean with sweeping machines like Tennant makes for factories, which means that you can use very thin, light tires without risk of puncture.
The intersections and terminals could be at hilltops, slightly above the level of the rest of the tube so that you can coast up into them, make your turn, and regain speed coasting out of them.
Since they are nearly level and the weight of the bicycle is less of a factor, streamlined bicycles could be used. Most of the energy needed to go fast on a bicycle goes into aerodynamic drag -- but on ordinary hilly roads, it's often not worth the weight penalty to streamline.
Using a system like this, I estimate (just by seat of the pants) that commute speeds could be in the 40 kph (25 mph) neighborhood, for practiced riders. Not professionals, not club riders, just people who've been riding for a while. On a smooth, dry, clean surface without pedestrians, automobiles, hills, or cross-traffic, on a streamlined bike or trike -- yeah, 40 kilometers in an hour isn't that tough. I'll bet it's faster than a commuter train, because you wouldn't stop at every station, and more flexible -- you can leave whenever you like.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Any sort of grade separted bicylce network is a great. The idea of making this enclosed from the elements is really innovative.
I think it should have a clear plastic top half so that it lets in natural light and allows the rider the enjoy the view and keep oriented.
Not quite sure how you get on and off. What do you do about different traffic speeds?
Cranor: I love the plastic top -- seeing the people going by on the other side, wave at them when you know them, etc. Fun! The top should be opaque, mostly, so that they don't pick up too much heat in the summer, but I really like the clear sides. Plus, you could shut off the lights when Nature provides the lighting.
Barry: I was kind of thinking of a car expwy, with a downhill entrance ramp/uphill exit ramp. The scenario might go like this:
You are headed east. Through the side windows, you see that you are coming into the 3rd floor of the municipal parking garage -- a Bike Skyway exchange. Sure enough, there's an exit with fairly abrupt upslope ahead. It's just enough to bleed off your 25 mph down to a more intersection-worthy 10 mph.
You need to head south, so you get on the roundabout (in the 3rd floor of the garage, remember) and take the first turn. Down you go, regaining speed to merge with the south-bound riders on the Nalebuff Skyway, headed toward the NewHaven Convention Center.(I don't even know if there is one. I'm just making this up. Sorry.)
Coming up to the NHC, you take the exit, coast up into the parking deck, exit the roundabout to stay at the NHC, park your bike and take the elevator down to the show.
Something like that. Would have liked to have described the scenery: the stopped traffic below you, your friends waving as you go by, all the healthy people around you, etc.
I'd really like to try one of these, if they existed
Oh, forgot. You could exit at the NH Mall terminal, which I am pretending exists at the top of a hill, then ride down to the Pizza Shop at the bottom of the hill.
True, you have to either ride back up the hill, or to a terminal with an elevator (like the parking deck), but look at it this way: on any given leg of a round trip you only climb one hill. Everything else is level once you get in the Skyway, or downhill when you leave it.
Also forgot the cool Public Locking Bike Rack where you keep your bike.
Or heck, while we're riding in tubes, why not do it in true Jetson's format and use vacuum tubes like at the drive-up bank tellers' windows? ;)
Well, since the tube is enclosed, if the lanes were separated, the riders would impart some favorable velocity to the air in the tube (not a lot unless the fit between the tube and rider were a whole lot tighter than I envisioned).
If the moving air were to have more than a minor impact on drag, you'd spend a lot of energy blowing air around -- probably more than a fuel-efficient vehicle roadway.
Still, you have to ventilate anyway; may as well get a little gain from it. Note to eventual developer: make sure to circulate air in the direction of traffic flow, up one tube and down the other. That should be relatively simple and low energy to implement, maybe less than the lighting requirement! So, thanks for the idea; it's the details you design in that make or break an idea.
Regarding the idea of blowing the air along with the riders;
Keep in mind that the cost of energy in fixed locations (line power, natural gas, other piped commodities) is drastically lower than the same amount of energy in transportable mediums. (like gasoline, diesel, lpg, etc) You could expend much more energy blowing air much cheaper than you could to expend the same amount of energy to push vehicles through the air.
There has also been much discussion of grade being minimal - sometimes grade is economical for construction or simply required, moving from one part of an urban area to another, for instance. A 'turbo tube' can blow uphill. You could even have little sails that snap out to catch a tailwind - pushing you up the hill with ease.
You can have minimum speed limits to prevent backups. And a fan could push air through the tube in the direction you are traveling for ventillation, cooling, and to increase the overall speed. Especially in the South, it could get very hot in the tube.
Man, this will really make me feel safe to know that my wife is coming home in an enclosed tunnel with lots of entrances and exits riding on 15 pounds of tubing instead of a 2 ton piece of steel moving faster than any human can run, behind locked doors, and hardly susceptible to any kind of trip wire or trap.
It's a cute idea, maybe it should be incorporated into a Disney movie; but unless you also plan on allocating much much more money to hire a security and traffic force (A separate police branch, basically) it's nothing more than a fantasy that you can think about on your way to work.
Clarification with respect to EmeraldFalcon's post:
This concept is for tubes with clear sides suspended from towers. Tunnels are underground.
"Lots of entrances and exits" -- I don't believe that was specified in the concept. I envisioned entrance and exits spaced about 1/2 mile apart -- every 2 minutes at design speed, but not an unreasonable walk.
This concept is for a bicycle roadway. People who prefer automobiles should not use the Bicycle Skyway.
I should point out, however, that maximum burst speed for a human is about 22 mph (Olympic-record performance.) This is slightly below the design speed for the Skyway, and well below the burst speed for a bicycle.
There was one idea in the post does apply to the concept of a Bicycle Skyway: the use of the Skyway by security forces. Certainly, people being what we are, security forces will be needed. They would be able to do some double duty: the clear walls and elevated position of the Skyway might make it a good place for 'spotters.'
EmeraldFalcon's post doesn't offer much detail, but I assume they would be "mounted" officers, rather than foot or stationary patrols.
I hope EmeraldFalcon posts his idea separately, with a link to this one for context.
Security could be via videocameras linked to police monitors every 1000 feet or so.
People would grouse that it made the streets below to dim and dreary, making shopping there less attractive. This is one of the main objections to monorails. Also that it would block sunlight from the trees.
OTOH, it would keep the streets below much clearer of snow--a major plus in snowy regions. But that means the bikeway would have to be sturdier, to handle snow loads, which can be very heavy. Also, cable bracing would be needed to protect against hurricanes.
Another problem: telephone and electric cables. The bikeway would need to be high up to clear them. The higher it is, the wobblier it is in the wind. But let's put up a few short test bikeway, in ideal locations, and get a feel for the situation. (I bet there are one or two already somewhere in the world.)
Hello, Roger Knights -- sorry it took so long to reply; the spam filter had my notification trapped.
WRT the shading: I hadn't thought of that! Thanks!
However, the ideas that -- the whole system be relatively high (to keep level between terminals) -- terminals could be in upper stories of existing structures -- the towers don't bear the concentrated weight of a train, might mean less shading than a monorail causes.
I agree: put one up, maybe in connection with an Olympics or a Theme Park or a destination Mall or a largish University, and see what happens. Going between existing buildings, you could run one most of the length of Manhattan Island and never put up a single tower! (Most of the buildings couldn't have terminals, otherwise you'd never keep pedestrians out of them.)
Even a little experience trumps more-or-less informed opinion.