martysipos




Member


1 | share

I totally support the concept. The proposal, however lacks detail. "National Safety Council says, with nearly 19,000 people killed as a result of motor vehicle accidents between January and June" 2015. Nearly 2.3 million “serious injuries,” during the same time. 

" Staggering toll: Car crashes cost $871 billion a year. Motor vehicles crashes cost the USA $871 billion a year in economic loss and societal harm, according to a new study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.May 29, 2014"

These numbers for US only, and only address direct costs of auto accidents. 


MikeTransitX




Member


2 | share
Proposal
creator

We submitted a proposal to the USDOT Smart City Challenge.  That has more detail and the 30-page proposal is here: 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x4nfxa6ewc6sykf/Transit%20X%20-%20Beyond%20Roads%20-%20Smart%20City%20Challenge.pdf?dl=0

We also have thousands of pages of technical and business details, and 3 letters of intent from cities and universities.

We aim to make Boston predominantly car-free within 15 years.


paragguptaphd




Catalyst


3 | share

Hello!  I'm Parag Gupta, an MIT Climate CoLab Catalyst.  I think you need to provide more detail in the proposal, but your idea and current support networks seem strong.  How do you plan to expand globally at a rapid pace, as noted, if approved and everything works in Cambridge?  Even if approval is granted, are you not looking at 10-30 years (realistically) in rolling out just in one city?  More number crunching could be useful.  Please take the most important details from your Dropbox document and enhance your proposal for the judges!  Thanks!


paulw




Fellow


4 | share

Hi,

Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough proposal and welcome to the ClimateColab. Good luck!

Your proposal seems great for personal transport. But what about moving goods, did I miss it? Perhaps give thought to that.

Thanks and best, Paul


MikeTransitX




Member


5 | share
Proposal
creator

The judges did not advanced this proposal to the semi-finalist round.  Given that a similar proposal won the judge's Choice award a few years ago, the result was surprising. The summary of the judge's evaluation was that it "contained intriguing elements" and to "try again".  Essentially, there was no critical feedback.  Given that the solution actually had letters of intent from customers and a funding plan to help end global warming, made the non-selection even more surprising. I read through the other proposals in the transportation category thinking that they must have been very strong proposals, but that was not the case.  The other proposals were mainly conceptual in nature, without any traction from customers or prototypes.  Yes, I'm shocked by the outcome, but even more disappointed by the quality of judging which makes me question the efficacy of this contest.

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.

Add Comment