Automation Yes, Automobiles No

Ryan D. Lamm writes about the latest developments for automating automobiles in his article "Driven to It", published in the November/December, 2008 edition of Thinking Highways North America. He summarizes his perspective with the sentences "A self-chauffeured vehicle is crossing over from the sphere of science fiction into the realm of reality in the foreseeable future.", and "Removing the driver from control of the vehicle has the potential to revolutionize what surface transportation might look like".

I completely agree with Mr. Lamm that self-chauffeured vehicles are exactly what ground transportation needs. But, in spite of the interesting and innovative technologies that are being developed to allow automobiles to be more and more guided automatically, I feel that relying on wheeled vehicles will greatly limit the possibility and the benefits of complete automation. In earlier posts on this blog, I've pointed out the disadvantages of the basic premise of wheeled vehicles:

1. their susceptibility to weather (no matter how completely automated),
2. their need for miles of paved over green space in the form of roadways and parking lots
3. the great expense of their required infrastructure of roads and bridges,
4. the impossibility of accommodating peak demand with just the ground level surface, and the impossibly high costs of elevating roads
5. the dangerous interaction of automobiles, even automated, with pedestrians, bicyclists, and animals, who also must use the ground level
6. the cost of the vehicles themselves, which will become more expensive with the additional automation accessories.
   

Mr. Lamm's goals of "rush hour, without traffic jams", "trauma centers without motor vehicle accidents", "reducing, or even eliminating, motor vehicle fatalities altogether" are laudable indeed. But, only a new type of vehicle and a new type of infrastructure can ever yield truly ideal automated transportation. That is why I've worked on a technology that uses lightweight, inexpensive air cushion vehicles of any size in lightweight, inexpensive, elevated guideways. I call this the Aeroduct System, and I've talked about it in previous blog entries and on the Aeromobile website. The automation of such a system will be considerably easier than implementing all the technologies - described quite well in Mr. Lamm's article - that will be necessary to automate cars and trucks. And, for each of the disadvantages of wheeled vehicles on paved roads that I enumerated above, I now list the corresponding advantages of the Aeroduct System:

1. The Aeroduct System is not influenced by snow, ice, rain or fog.
2. No paving is required for the guideways or for temporarily "parked" vehicles.
3. The lightweight guideways of the Aeroduct System will cost far less to build and maintain than the many miles of asphalt and concrete needed for automobiles.
4. The capacity of the Aeroduct System can be easily increased, with guideways stacked horizontally and vertically.
5. Pedestrians, bicyclists and animals will rule the ground surface, with the transparent/translucent Aeroduct guideways a safe distance overhead.
6. The air cushion vehicles in the guideways are mechanically far simpler than cars or trucks, more efficient in their use of fuel, and more easily automated.
   

We will all benefit from the research that is developing the new sensing, communication and control technologies Mr. Lamm discusses quite well. But if we really want to have transportation system that achieves the goals he sets forth in his article, we have to travel away from the age of automobiles towards the age of air cushion vehicles in guideways.

What Ever Happened to the Air Cushion Vehicle?

I was one of the pioneers of air cushion technology in the late 1950s and I met or knew many of the other founders of what we hoped then was a technology with unlimited promise. When I look around I am more than surprised by how limited is the use of ACVs today. The World Hovercraft Organization, with its Hoverworld Insider newsletter presents many of the craft being sold and used worldwide. It amazes me how this technology is limited to a few niches, and cannot even begin to compare in popularity with boats. How is it possible that instead of revolutionizing water and land travel, ACVs are such a small business?

Well, for one thing, ACVs are challenging to control. A frictionless craft is at the mercy of many elements, including wind and slope. I experienced first hand the frustration of getting these craft to precisely obey the driver. It took me a number of years and a number of full scale model craft before I could finally tame the wild ACV beast. My Gimbal Fan technology makes it possible for these vehicles to navigate as they should. On water and amphibious surfaces, Gimbal Fan ACVs maneuver effectively and predictably. Such craft really could challenge boats for many uses.

We pioneers of the technology also expected to revolutionize land transportation, too. The initial coverage of my work by Popular Science in 1959 talked about “cars without wheels”. It is doubtful that anyone today uses an ACV for land transportation. It was not until I developed my Aeroduct System of ground transportation, with ACVs in guideways, that I felt that air cushion technology really could replace the car. Even my early work showed me how ACVs liked being confined in grooves, and over time I conceived the Aeroduct System and developed a working prototype of this System. With wheel based transportation having any number of deficiencies, I feel that a car without wheels is exactly what is needed now and in the future.

I've spent 50 years in the air cushion craft business, and so far, it is not a business that has thrived. But the potential is still there and I feel I've found the ways for this technology to live up to all its promise.