Mini Elevated GREEN TRAINS - preparing for flooded subways in coastal cities by terrautopia

Dear Judge,

I will list in bold italics the questions you posted followed by my answers:

Interesting idea and one that is relevant to sustainable cities which will become more populated as years go by. The first question the Judges have is whether the supply of this transport option will meet demand. This is especially evidence on over-crowded transport systems we have in major cities.

The cTrain can bring a comprehensive solution to urban mobility especially with the growth of cites and the goal is to develop a standard by which a city ensures efficient mobility meeting demand in the same way it needs to meet demand for water and electricity.

Regarding capacity. The cTrain can be built over every major street in a city providing coverage anywhere within a few blocks. This allows for a dense enough infrastructure to fully meet demand. Looking at the map below the  blue lines shows the coverage in a city such as Boston/Cambridge. Having a cTrain at about 4-5 blocks furthest walking distance, is one element that ensures that demand is met.

A second element ensuring that demand is fully met is the variable capacity. Express lines that can have 100 rows of two seats and go over more open areas such as highways and main roads. For example in the above map the thicker lines show the longer trains of 100 rows versus the thinner lines with trains of only 10 to 20 rows of two seats.

At 100 rows (i.e. 200 seats) at two trains per minute – capacity up to 12k passengers per hour.

The images below show cTrains with 25 rows (left side) and 10 rows

At 25 rows (i.e. 50 seats) at two trains per minute – capacity up to 3k passengers per hour; at 10 rows the capacity is 1.2k passengers per hour.

One way to look at the ability to meet demand is to compare with the current bus and subway systems. First, the cTrain provides about 10 lines where currently there is one subway line. There are many advantages besides convenience of better proximity but also more efficiency in the sense that this model eliminates the clustering to subways from much greater distances than to cTrains which are much more spread out over multiple lines. In a denser city such as in Manhattan the cTrain lines would be even more densely placed to meet the same or better demand as subways.

More notes about Capacity can be seen here.

http://jacob-innovations.com/cTrain.html

People are often packed in tightly standing up. How many of these c-Trains would be needed to service demand at peak hours? Would the infrastructure be able to cope with demand in 'sitting room only'?

We calculated  about 10 cTrain lines would cover the capacity of an existing subway line. This would also provide superior service and greater energy efficiency. The sitting room only is counterintuitive when evaluating passengers capacity as this feature reduces the time needed to stop at each station allowing for the next train to come in sooner.

Quick and Easy Entry and Exit

In order to reduce the entry and exit time, the floor of the train is elevated above the platform of station. Given the height of the train floor above the station floor (shown by arrow) there is a reduction in the standing up and sitting down time and effort required for each passenger. The differential in height of vehicle platform versus ground level makes for easy access, similar to seating into, and getting out from, an SUV or a golf cart. The image below is from test videos showing that for an older person it takes less than 3 seconds to exit or enter the vehicle.

Efficient Passenger Circulation

No jostling for seats - passengers line up to wait for the train and walk to the points where a green light indicates an
upcoming open seat - in the same way as accessing the next open teller in a bank.

Upon boarding they select their destination station from a digital screen to record where they intend to get off—which helps indicate open seats in the upcoming stations via green light (image included) as well as forecast passenger flow and need send out more cTrains (via automated robotics) as volume picks up. The above features provide an essential means to maximize passenger volume and by covering all major avenues the cTrain can handle the capacity needed to absorb all passengers with minimal wait times.

During rush hours the system can send more trains out from the vertical depots to meet demand. Vertical Depots allow the cTrains to park themselves according to algorithms for easy storage and maintenance and to “move out” of the lines during low demand to save energy. Data from stations will feed into algorithms by which the cTrain decides whether to "Return" to carry passengers or to park itself

The second question the Judges have is about the feasibility of the materials - have the materials that arch and supporting structures would use been identified: strong but thin and even transparent as the article proposes.

 

 

Currently we used calculations for traditional materials – steel. The image below is the design with structural calculations and the expected look and feel of the first version on the market.

Until we have the funding and the time for the R&D for transparent and thinner material we will apply the use of vegetation for ambiance and reduced visual impact on the city landscape, as in the image below.

Finally, what the winner of this contest do with the prize in order to progress this idea? - As this is an adaptation proposal, please address how heat (which warps Chicago's elevated rail lines) wind and ice will impact.

 

The prize of $10k would be applied towards renting office space with incubator Greentown Labs to develop a small scale model for investors and proceed with R&D and marketing.

From feedback from structural engineers the traditional steel and concrete materials can withstand extreme low and high temperatures and the design can accommodate warp. The system of trusses also allows for thinner material which helps reduce warp.

Also note that the cTrain is much smaller (seating room only) than the Chicago L

Regarding wind and earthquakes, every wheel is secured by stabilizer horizontal wheels as in the image below.

Regarding ice, the tracks will be heating and contain sensors detecting ice building to activate melting. Redundant sensor also ensure that there is no interference of any kind on the tracks at all times.

 

Also, pedestrian flow with the concrete pilons? Your sidewalks seem wider than most.

The supporting pilons are no thicker than a regular concrete pole so we expect to fit the cTrain wherever there is space for standard concrete poles.

However we experimented with thicker concrete at the base of the poles as safety against accidents which would require a minimal additional space, that still allows for accommodation on regular sidewalks.

Regarding the structural engineering challenges we received positive feedback from the  THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS in the article below, following our win lat year at the MIT CoLab in the Transportation Category:  MASS TRANSIT INVENTION GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND

Finally, anything about social equity here - except for the elderly and handicapped, it seems these would be fore the average wealthy person in a downtown? (which is true of lots of public transit, I understand)

The cTrain is meant as a universal standard similar to water and electricity services to cover all areas of human activity. The concept is design to enable cities to require standards by which access to a cTrain must be available from no further then (say) 500 meters from any residential or commercial building. This is a vital element to address not only green mobility but also equity. Having the cTrain as a standard eliminates inequality and one of the greatest barriers for the poor to access jobs. Poor areas have few good paying jobs, while access to areas with good jobs is severely impeded in today’s models even in the advanced economies.

Thank you for your feedback and your help to make the cTrain bring to urban mobility what the internet has brought to information movement, or at a minimum to replace the subway systems in vulnerable areas, to avoid paralyzing transportation, and at the same time upgrade to a new era of mass transit.

Sincerely,

Emil Jacob and Dr. Ashwani Kumar

The cTrain model ensures the smooth functioning of public transit in coastal cities against paralysis of subway systems due to flooding during storm surges. But this is only one of the many advantages of the design.

Further more. the cTrain brings  a holistic and comprehensive solution to urban mobility addressing the following vital challenges that have not been solved since beginning of public transit more than a century ago:

1. Fully green public transit
2. Low construction costs & Short implementation times (modular design, efficient assembly)
3. Low operation & maintenance costs       
   • • Self driving system
     • Standard parts
     • Sensors and robots detect and repair tracks without interruption in service
     • Efficient use of energy per passenger
4. Accessibility within an acceptable walking distance from any point in a city
5. Frequency at a reasonable wait times
6. Speed at acceptable levels
7. Comfort and privacy (comparable to cars)
8. Silent mass transit.
9. Optimal design - familiarity and semblance of trains while acceptable within the urban landscape

CONCLUSION

We hope that the cTrain shows that urban mobility can be solved within a short period and at a reasonable cost. By designing the cTrain model we seek to show the possibilities at hand – with existing technologies – to bring a comprehensive and holistic solution to one of the major human needs as well as barrier to inequality while providing a means to dramatically drop emissions.