Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wirelessly Charged Buses Being Tested Next Year

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the canada-gets-all-the-cool-stuff dept.

Canada 245

An anonymous reader writes "From the article: 'Bombardier's electric transit technology will be tested next winter on buses in Montreal, followed in early 2014 on a route in the German city of Mannheim. The transportation giant's Primove technology is designed to allow buses to be charged by underground induction stations when they stop to let passengers hop on and off.' This technology while impressive may not make it to the U.S. even if proven successful due to the lack of popularity of public transportation. If they could only get my phone to charge wirelessly." The article says that the induction charging stuff could also be used to charge trains.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why not popular? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941107)

What? Why is public transport not popular in the US? o.0

Re:Why not popular? (3, Interesting)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941125)

For most places, it's because the service is so crappy. And in places like Chicago, they think the solution is to cut services and raise prices. The auto/oil industry also has a lot of say in policy.

Chicago is better then other citys and price is be (2, Informative)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941159)

Chicago is better then other citys and price is better then driving in and parking also faster and less stress some times when walking you have to deal with turning cars that can stack up.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (3, Interesting)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941285)

A city's mass transit system is a reflection of its land. blaming transit systems for poor ridership is like blaming a fat man's obesity on his big pants.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (0)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941537)

Or one could note that the US has a well established, nationwide, efficient, point to point, cheap, private transportation system that works better for most uses than the public transportation alternative. But by all means, let's pretend it's a character problem.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941655)

Land. Reread.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (4, Insightful)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941697)

If by private you mean publicly funded infrastructure such as roads, bridges, highways, traffic systems and policing then you are correct. The only thing private are the cars.

No it's not the existence of this vast asphalt and concrete ball and chain that prevents the US from having a good public transportation system.

It is however the fact that land is plentiful outside metro areas and many people prefer to commute. There are a variety of reasons for this. Historically it has been the industrialization of the inner city areas with businesses wanting to be close to the transportation hubs the cities grew up around. This lead to the residential areas moving further away to avoid pollution and activities they wanted to avoid (bars, worker riots, etc). Which turned the inner city residential areas into lower class neighborhoods and eventually impoverished areas.

So now we have huge suburban communities that sprawl across the land and require decentralized transportation as each area may have residents commuting to entirely different business regions. People now choose where to live based on many factors other than where they work (neighborhood, price, schools, amenities like parks or natural environments) but they still need to commute to work each day.

Centralized transportation of any kind is a failed proposition for many US metro areas. At best it could be a long term strategy if attractive housing and amenities can be set up within walking distance so that young workers can have the choice rather than impoverishing themselves trying to afford a downtown lifestyle.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (2)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941587)

I would love to use public transportation to get to my job.

A bus nearby would get me to the electric line in the chicago area to board in Richton park. An hour and twenty minutes later I could switch trains and head to naperville. After that hour and twenty minute ride I could walk three blocks to work.

Or I can drive for forty minutes and get to work.

I would love to actually move to naperville, but when I bought my house at a fantastic price (it was worth 40 thousand more than I agreed to pay for it) I can't actually sell it cause I'm 60 thousand in the hole due to the market crash.

I can't get a job locally that pays a living wage, crook county has made sure not only to overtax, but to actually chase businesses away. So either I commute or lose everything.

The mass transit system in the chicago area sucks. Unless you manage to live in the city itself, and work in the city itself it's worthless. It would fold overnight if it couldn't tax all the collar counties that can't use the system anyway.

It's a collosal mess and money pit. Just like everything that Chicago runs.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941369)

Update: FEMA is aware of the acute punctuation shortage in Chicago and will get a shipment of multipurpose punctuation (usable as commas, apostrophes, and forward or backward quotes) to you as soon as Congress approves the appropriation.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941505)

In Chicago, ANY method of transport is faster and cheaper than driving.
I knew someone who managed to get stuck in traffic for 4 hours on 294 while trying to get through that area once.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941539)

Dude. Punctuation - it's your friend. As is grammar and spelling. I still don't know what you mean by the last half of your giant sentence.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941659)

Dude. Punctuation - it's your friend. As is grammar and spelling. I still don't know what you mean by the last half of your giant sentence.

You really shouldn't be giving advice on punctuation or grammar. Your spelling is great, though.

Re:Chicago is better then other citys and price is (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941889)

"This technology while impressive may not make it to the U.S. even if proven successful due to the lack of popularity of public transportation."

America is too busy. I was in Chicago and found the traffic pretty unreal. It's also very difficult to walk in some areas - almost as if you don't have a car, you're not really a valid citizen. What happens with peak oil and people only lose money by having a car? They'll need new public infrastructure so in a way America is an ideal candidate for this. They just don't know it yet. America has plenty of domestically sourced oil and gas but I can't help that think that's planned for something else - like permanent wars maybe.

Re:Why not popular? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941167)

You really think the problems in Chicago's public sector institutions are the result of big oil, huh?

Re:Why not popular? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941207)

Nope, machine politics is what made Chicago famous. However big oil has far too much influence on transportation/energy policy in general in all parts of the world.

Re:Why not popular? (2)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941459)

You really think the problems in Chicago's public sector institutions are the result of big oil, huh?

Hell no, Chicago politicians have too much integrity to accept bribes from Big Oil, and Big Oil's own integrity (and razor-thin margins) precludes them from offering them. :o)

Re:Why not popular? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941637)

You think the auto/oil industry has a lot of control over local governments? What planet are you on.

Jesus, lay off the self-congratulatory circlejerk-- its making you go blind.

Re:Why not popular? (0)

MrEricSir (398214) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941149)

What? Why is public transport not popular in the US? o.0

Cheap gas, plus almost our entire infrastructure was (unfortunately) built for private automobiles.

Re:Why not popular? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941329)

Plus the bus schedules never line up with work schedules. Might have to get up at 4AM to catch the 5AM bus in order to work at 7. And god forbid you miss the bus and the next one isn't until two hours later. Then if you have to work on a weekend shift or late hours... Bus? Nope!

There's only a few major metropolitan areas where buses are any good. (Usually about 15 min apart in those cases.) Head out to the burbs or anywhere else and buses tend to really suck. (They're pretty much neglected in the U.S. in a manner similar to bicycle and pedestrian friendly transportation infrastructure. In other words: If you live in the U.S. outside of a major large city and don't have a car, you're gonna have a bad time.)

Re:Why not popular? (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941573)

Exactly. My car broke down last week. What should be a 10 minute drive now takes me the better part of an hour and a half on the bus. You have to wait for the bus because it might be 5 minutes early or up to 20 minutes late, and then the route goes all over the god damn place. Of course, I have to arrive at least 5 minutes before my shift at work to get ready and that means that I have to catch the bus that shows up 30 minutes before my shift. It's ridiculous. I waste several hours per day dealing with the fucking bus. Getting work done on the bus is a laughable proposition. It's hard to work on a bouncy, shifting platform, you might not be able to get a seat, and taking a laptop on board is simply asking to get mugged.

The only people that wonder why public transportation isn't popular are people that don't take public transportation.

Re:Why not popular? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941495)

Don't forget that, with a few exceptions (transit friendly NYC, for instance!), our inner cities have no shortage of low income housing. In Europe and many other countries, the working poor and lower middle class commute in from the suburbs.

Re:Why not popular? (1)

Kenja (541830) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941169)

For me... its the smell of urin and human misery. But perhaps that's just a SF MUNI thing.

Re:Why not popular? (5, Interesting)

afgam28 (48611) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941493)

I'm from Australia, have lived in Japan, and am now living in the US. I think the US is a great country to live in (especially if you're a software engineer) but one of the things that I find strange is that the downtown areas of cities are so desolate, particularly at night. In every other country I've been to, the "downtown" area is the beating heart of the city - it's the center of business, culture and nightlife. It's a desirable place to be and you have to pay more money to live in or near it.

But in the US, urban environments are for some reason associated with crime, homelessness, the smell of urine and human misery, and so most "normal" (middle-class) people avoid the area. People don't want to live there, let alone be in the area outside of business hours. I find it bizarre that inner city neighborhoods are considered to be bad areas - in Japan and Australia, inner city neighborhoods are the most expensive ones because they're so convenient to live in.

Since most of the normal people (i.e. people who wouldn't urinate in a train) have moved out into the suburbs, American cities are usually left with a decaying urban core and endlessly sprawling suburbs. Public transport requires a certain level of density before it is worthwhile, and most US cities don't meet that level of density. That's the reason why public transport doesn't work here. In the few cities where there is a good level of density (e.g. New York City) there is a good public transport system. But New York is not a typical American city...

Australian cities have sprawling suburbs too, but the urban cores are not full of homeless people and does not smell of urine! The dole bludgers are usually living somewhere in the outer suburbs where land is more affordable.

Re:Why not popular? (2)

germansausage (682057) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941541)

Come to Vancouver some time.

Re:Why not popular? (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941725)

Many US cities are trying to reinvigorate their downtown but it is a chicken and egg problem. They need the density to make the services profitable and they need the services to generate the density. The crime, etc is just an excuse to avoid investing.

Re:Why not popular? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941785)

US Cities are inside out compared to Australia. People pay a fortune to live in Brunswick and ride a bike to work in Collins street. Maybe in the US those people just want a nice freeway to drive on.

Re:Why not popular? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941247)

Because most of the US looks like this:

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/auborddulac/auborddulac1111/auborddulac111100006/11186607-empty-road-leading-between-harvested-corn-fields-up-to-the-horizon--shallow-dof.jpg

Re:Why not popular? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941381)

Population density, the auto/oil lobby, the universality and the affordability of the driver license in the US, road subsidies vs. low taxes on gasoline, and last but not least: the divide between rich and poor. Those are some of the reasons public transportation is not faring well in the US.

Re:Why not popular? (1)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941449)

It is in NYC, but most of the US isn't a major population center.

Re:Why not popular? (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941483)

If its like here in Miami, then it sucks. Busses are never on time. Pass once in a blue moon. Lots of busses stop running after midnight. And the price per ride is 2 dollars.

Re:Why not popular? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941919)

cause in most places its worthless

like my city, you got to drive to catch the bus, then it takes what would be a 20 min drive to a 3 hour hostage situation

or how about the train that only goes to between only 2 parts of the city?

free energy? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941117)

If you carried a coil of wire with the correct circuitry attached you'd be able to charge your cell phone at the bus/train stop as well.

Re:free energy? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941217)

Open source it an all the open source faggots will use it to charge a dildo.

Re:free energy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941263)

I'd rather use the free energy to post responses to poorly spelled troll posts on slashdot via my cell phone, you effeminate clod!

Re:free energy? (3, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941361)

And everyone would be much happier.

Re:free energy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941501)

And the 3D printing retards will be 3D printing trinkets until the universe evaporates its last proton.

Re:free energy? (3, Insightful)

Jeremi (14640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941595)

If you carried a coil of wire with the correct circuitry attached you'd be able to charge your cell phone at the bus/train stop as well.

In fact, slipping a coil of appropriately-wound wire into your buddy's back pocket will become a popular practical joke.

Re:free energy? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941797)

My guess is that a transponder on the bus triggers the charging field, so you won't be able to charge for long.

The Induction Charging Stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941133)

Keep up the good editing!

charge trains?? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941139)

That sounds kind of dumb. Why would a train need batteries for propulsion?

Re:charge trains?? (4, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941199)

That sounds kind of dumb. Why would a train need batteries for propulsion?

Because these days more and more ticket-buying passengers are refusing to help pump the handcar arm.

Re:charge trains?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941405)

Third rail?

Re:charge trains?? (1)

socialleech (1696888) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941205)

Most major metropolitan US cities have a light rail system. These are powered electrically, Also, a lot of freight trains are powered electrically [wikipedia.org] .

Re:charge trains?? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941257)

That's his point. Given that trains can only run on tracks, and that either the rails or the overhead lines already provide power, what is the advantage of having a heavy, inefficient means of storing power on the vehicle itself?

Re:charge trains?? (1)

zonky (1153039) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941281)

Not all trains use overhead or line power. In the UK, there are many lines where Diesel-electric trains are still in use.

This article was published recently about research into how to avoid having to equip these lines with overhead power:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/feb/03/battery-powered-intercity-trains-possible-study [guardian.co.uk]

Re:charge trains?? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941805)

The overhead is expensive to build and maintain. We would not install one for electric cars for example. Maybe it is cheaper just to charge the trains at stations.

Re:charge trains?? (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941869)

We wouldn't do it for electric cars because we'd have to cover an order-of-magnitude more ground for a vehicle that doesn't travel on rails.

I guess it might be worthwhile for new lines (do we still build these? My state hasn't opened a new rail station in my lifetime) but I can't imagine any cost savings in retro-fitting existing lines. I imagine the maintenance cost for batteries would be, at best, not better than that of the overheads.

Re:charge trains?? (2)

beltsbear (2489652) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941379)

There are almost no electrically powered freight trains in the US. Besides metro/light rail systems, the only electrified rail in the US is the Amtrak northeast corridor line.

Re:charge trains?? (1)

quenda (644621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941735)

There are almost no electrically powered freight trains in the US.

Actually they are all electric, just with an onboard diesel generator. Is it possible to adapt these engines to use overhead lines when available?

Re:charge trains?? (2)

stephanruby (542433) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941325)

That sounds kind of dumb. Why would a train need batteries for propulsion?

Because wires can be unsightly, third rails need to be maintained and secured over long distances, and there is always the occasional flooding or natural disaster that could disable an electrical line at the worst possible location when it's sharing a road with cars, or perhaps being loaded on a ferry. And of course, sometimes electrical trains are chosen over non-electrical trains because they make less noise and less smoke.

Re:charge trains?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941371)

Trains are actually either electric(passenger) or diesel electric(freight) hybrids. Both utilize batteries.

If you wanted a more straightforward answer to your question, it's because it's more fuel efficient to use batteries. A train gets about 500 mpg. [wikipedia.org]

Re:charge trains?? (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941603)

You probably should note that it is about 500 passenger-miles per gallon (pmpg), not miles per gallon (mpg). The table shows that the train itself gets 1.25 miles per gallon. Still very efficient when compared to other transportation.

Re:charge trains?? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941511)

I could see a point occurring where it is cheaper to put batteries on a train than to run wires or a third rail for the entire run after maintenance is considered.

Re:charge trains?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941565)

Who said anything about propulsion? The batteries are for the next-generation electric chain dildos.

Re:charge trains?? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941663)

Because all modern trains are electric? They mostly don't use batteries because they're run off a diesel generator. Obviously, the electrics don't have the generator and just run off wires.

Probabl yiwe e9t is with cake (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941151)

In Canada everything is about cake, just like in the USA everything is about racism.

On Slashdort, everything is shit.

What's wrong with public transportation? (2)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941157)

This technology while impressive may not make it to the U.S. even if proven successful due to the lack of popularity of public transportation.

OK, if you live in the U.S., why don't you ride the bus or train to work?

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (5, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941195)

Because I'd have to sit next to other people from the US! Really, have you seen us?

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941209)

In to work

Drive: 20 minutes
Bus: 45 minutes, two transfers.

Out of work

Drive: 20 minutes
Bus: 1:30, two transfers.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941625)

Here is mine before and after I moved and my job moved offices, which happened within 6 months of each other:

Before
Drive: 25 minutes
Bus: 1 hour with no transfers and a bus that came by every 15 minutes during rush hour

After
Drive: 15 minutes
Bus: 2.25 hours with two transfers and a bus that comes by every 45 minutes during rush hour. Yes, that is right. Even though I live closer to my office by a little over 50% the bus trip takes over twice as long and requires more transfers.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (1)

hedwards (940851) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941671)

Interesting, where I live and work it's more or less the opposite. I take it the transit outfit where you live doesn't use grade separation for mass transit.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941211)

Because its easier, faster, and healthier to take my bicycle.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941283)

and breath other people's exhaust all the way? You must have an interesting definition of healthy...

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941347)

Then don't ride behind a car? Are you a fucking idiot? Oh wait, you can't tell breath from breathe, you probably are.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941253)

Because there is no bus service where I live, nor where I work.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941273)

When I lived near a bus route and worked in the center city, I did take the bus for 2 years. My wife did also and later commuted either by train or 4 passenger hybrid carpool.

Most of my working life I lived in a single family house on a cul-de-sac which is just off a 2 lane no-shoulder, dangerous to walk or bike ride road where no bus even comes close. My work locations were mostly even more rural. Never was anyone living near my work locations. Parking was always provided and free.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941327)

Because I work from home you insensitive clod!

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941341)

The owner of my company decided to build just outside the city because the land was cheaper. Bus service isn't even an option unless I want to take 2 buses followed by a bike ride instead of a 10-15 minute drive. My wife works downtown and takes the bus or bikes and one car between the two of us is better than no cars or two cars for cost and flexibility.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941401)

12 minutes to drive 5 miles. 30 minutes to bicycle 8 miles or 55 minutes to take the bus 15 miles.

Don't worry if you don't get it; the whole "streets built in the last century" thing is so American. And yes, there are bike trails from the edge of my neighborhood to the bike rack at work.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941427)

It takes about 1h 30m to get to anyplace worth getting to by bus in my city. It takes about 1h to walk and I have a rain jacket. I use a backpack to carry my groceries. Why would I ride the $2 bus?

For places further away than 1hr walking, the bus times don't line up with when I'd need to be there so taking the bus would turn it into a day trip. Completely not worth it. I'm too busy for that.

Re:What's wrong with public transportation? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941523)

OK, if you live in the U.S., why don't you ride the bus or train to work?

Me? There is one direct train that would get me to work, and it leaves 2 hours before I'm ready. If I miss the single direct train coming back, I have to change over, making the trip take about 6 times as long as the drive. And then I'd have to leave even earlier to walk over and get the kids at their two separate schools. I'd be able to work for about 3 hours per day, tops.

My wife works in a crappy part of town and often has to leave work after dark.

So yeah, we both drive despite having readily accessible public transit.

Trains?! (2)

AJWM (19027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941179)

A distinguishing characteristic of trains is that they run on fixed tracks. The kind of thing that's easy to put a third rail beside or a wire overhead. Why TF would you need to charge them?

Re:Trains?! (3, Insightful)

Nemosoft Unv. (16776) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941279)

Putting up a third rail or wire overhead incurs costs too. Plus, it's sometimes inconvenient when a train track has a level crossing with 'regular' traffic.

I'd be more worried about the huge magnetic fields being generated to transfer energy from the grid to the bus or train. You need a whopping amount of Joules to move a train, and to charge it in the short time it's waiting at a stop requires even more current. It probably would make for a very good hard disk degausser... (not to mention the danger to credit cards, RFID card and anything else with a wire loop in it)

Re:Trains?! (2)

AJWM (19027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941513)

Plus, it's sometimes inconvenient when a train track has a level crossing with 'regular' traffic.

The 'trains' (aka Light Rail) in downtown Denver happily share the streets with regular traffic (out of downtown they have their own rights of way and grade-separated crossings).

Of course, growing up in Toronto we called them 'streetcars', and they even crossed each others' tracks (and wires).

The point is that if you're not loading the thing down with batteries that need to be charged, you don't need quite so whopping many Joules to move them. (And if you do, you can recover a lot of those Joules with regenerative braking.)

Re:Trains?! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941829)

Yeah I would wonder about building a robotic charging plug. Lose less energy that way, or maybe make it inductive but close coupled and robotic. Like an electric toothbrush.

Bad Summary (5, Informative)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941191)

The anonymous writer behind the summary slipped in his or her own opinion about the US's appetite for public transit, and the likelihood of such an innovation ever reaching our shores. Speaking as a New Yorker, we *love* public transit. If this proves to be successful, cost effective and green, I bet there would be a major push to adopt it - here at least.

Re:Bad Summary (2)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941581)

Induction charging, as it is now, is anything but cost effective and green. Its one of the most inefficient charging methods around.

Re:Bad Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941699)

Your point about the summary is true enough, but why does it matter who said it and whether that individual identified himself? I mean, if you're some kind of conspiracy nut, okay, knock yourself out.

But if not, argue the points, not the person. I think it's pretty ridiculous for someone using a pseudonym to throw stones at anonymous posters. A pseudonym is, after all, just an anonymous handle used to say "I am the same person who said these other things. You should listen to me, but you still don't know who I am." It's like posting anonymously but trying to claim some authority at the same time.

And hey, maybe your name actually is "ohnocitizen". Or maybe your decision to bold "anonymous" and using the pejorative "slipped" means something else entirely. In either case, I apologize. But I kind of doubt either scenario.

Knowing what I know about the average slashdot poster, the writer didn't just "slip" his opinion in there. He added it to try to make himself look clever. He's appealing to people who already agree with his ignorant opinion. Just like you are appealing to people who agree with yours.

Re:Bad Summary (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941929)

speaking as a non New Yorker, public transportation in most of the country is non existant or near worthless ... unless you want to go from the ghetto to the mall

What a waste (2)

Khyber (864651) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941229)

Induction charging, that's rather inefficient. Better to fit the trains with connection pads at the bottom, and have them stop along a solid-contact charging strip in the designated stop area, for direct-wire charging.

Much less to maintain, too.

Re:What a waste (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941259)

For trains it's kind of dumb, but for buses they can use electromagnetic resonance charging, which is much more efficient and transferring power wirelessly and doesn't have to be lined up as well

Re:What a waste (1)

Kyusaku Natsume (1098) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941357)

I see this more like a pork project for Bombardier from the Canadian government. Considering the huge losses from the wireless chargers and the mass of the bus and passengers, this will be hardly viable on commercial terms, even taking into account the cheap hydroelectric energy in Canada.

Americans love public transport (2)

Sussurros (2457406) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941255)

Americans love public transport, look how often they catch cabs!

Americans would like public transit more (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941317)

with a nice little carbon tax with a "starter" rate of say $5 per gallon of gas imposed.
It would kill two birds with one stone:
      1. Put the brakes on the rate of expansion of fossil fuel use and GHG emissions growth
      2. Start making a dent in the US deficit and debt

But of course, being a rational, sensible, simple, and effective policy, this would naturally be political suicide.

Re:Americans would like public transit more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941407)

Why suggest screwing the 90+% of us that don't have convenient public transportation available? Even though I live in the Seattle area, the closest bus is still over an hour walk away, and even if I rode the bus to work, it would take another 90 minutes to get to work. I'm sorry. I'm not wealthy like you and can afford to waste five hours a day walking to/from and riding public transportation. You rich people are all the same. You want to steal what little leisure time we have.

Re:Americans would like public transit more (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941447)

because regressive taxes only hurt poor people, so snobs like him don't see it.

Re:Americans would like public transit more (1)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941593)

I think we should put a special tax on people who assume that everyone lives in a big city like they do, and has access to a public transportation system. 20% of their gross income would be a good start.

Re:Americans would like public transit more (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941665)

First of all, that would more than double the cost of gas, second of all, that would have no effect on debt or deficit, the bill would have to be written specifically so that the money could only be used to pay debt, otherwise it would all get spent on tax cuts or Homeland Security. Also, any increase in gas prices generally leads to an overall increase in product prices, because it costs more to ship everything.

You really want to clean up the environment? Instead of artificially raising the price of gas even more (there is $1-$2 per gallon worth of taxes at the pump already), take all the money we currently spend on the military, and use it instead to build so many solar and wind farms that it forces electricity costs down, hopefully to the point where coal and gasoline look expensive in comparison.

When you want to teach a dog a new trick, dog treats work a lot better than shock collars. The same rule applies when you are trying to teach an entire nation, it's better to give incentives for doing "good" than punishment for doing "bad".

Also, "carbon taxes" and "carbon credits" are a complete joke. It leads to odd situations where power plants and industrial factories are now buying up old refrigerant and incinerating it because, according to the law, destroying a pound of refrigerant earns enough "carbon credits" to offset a pound of carbon pollution, and it's currently cheaper to buy and destroy a pound of refrigerant than it is to actually remove a pound of carbon from the smokestack. The part that makes this really stupid, is that the refrigerant would have likely been reused in another piece of equipment, and would have never ended up in the atmosphere in the first place.

Re:Americans would like public transit more (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941729)

This is a perfect example of why public transportation fails. The only time it is attractive is if you somehow make driving a car is even crappier than public transit. When you have decent roads, are not in a massively overpopulated area and don't have crazy laws like suggested above, cars pretty much always win.

Cu (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941345)

In the USA the charging stations would be stolen for the copper.

I wonder what else it does? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941359)

So the coils in the ground charge the bus when the bus stops. Do they also erase all the passengers' credit cards and portable device hard disks?

Doesn't seem worth it (2)

JasoninKS (1783390) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941399)

Doesn't seem like the bus would get much charge for the short time it's parked. I can't see the benefit.

Re:Doesn't seem worth it (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941553)

Only turn it on when a wheelchair is loading. That should give it plenty of time to charge.

phones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941453)

Screw trains. How fast will this charge my phone?

If you stand on this will the keys in your pocket melt into your leg?

Induction charging works! (1)

chromaexcursion (2047080) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941515)

Tesla's dream. induction charging. OK not long distance. Tesla got that wrong. If every stop/station had an induction charger it might be able to re-charge the bus. this isn't an easy problem. think about it!

Free power! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941567)

How are they going to stop electrickery thiefs

Welcome to falling behind China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941677)

Was just in Shanghai in January. They have supercapacitor buses currently operating on major routes. A superstructure on the roof extends upwards to power lines for 5-10s, the caps charge, the structure retracts, and onward the bus goes.

But don't fear for American innovation - just look at Facebook, right?

Re:Welcome to falling behind China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42941953)

wow they made bumper busses with extremely low life currently near toy technology

clap clap

(repost) Welcome to falling behind China (3, Interesting)

prodigalmba (2844961) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941741)

(reposted after logging in from anonymous coward status) I was in Shanghai in January, and observed supercapacitor (as labeled) buses operating on major routes on-loading and off-loading passengers. Overhead cables lined the route, and at every stop the bus would extend a superstructure to the cables, make contact (whether directly or inductively - unobservable), wait 5-10s, retract, and onward the bus would go. I don't know who manufactured the buses. I simply thought it notable that the Chinese were fielding such a system. I'll leave the questions about liability, etc. to the floor. In any case, and irrespective of where the bus was manufactured, guess who's going to learn whatever shortcomings may lie in this technology and improve on them first for having deployed it. And if the buses were designed or made in China, then . . . props to them. Not trying to create xenophobic bogeymen here, quite the contrary, it's worth observing how different folks operate.

Just wait I've been waiting for... (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42941777)

now if I can just figure out how to modify an EV to take advantage...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?