Rue de l'Avenir
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
I can't escape the feeling that we used to be so much bolder and unconstrained in setting goals for ourselves and actually pursuing them. I feel like 1900 people would have fixed global warming, unaffordable housing, universal healthcare etc.
If you dug them out of their graves and presented the scientific world as we have it now it's highly likely they'd see the predicaments we are in now and a whole lot of that technological progress would be different. Turned out running economies on leaded gas burns up atmospheres and brains. Turns out that physics didn't have unlimited secrets to divulge without ever increasing amounts of effort and energy being applied to discover them.
... although, "somewhat" agree with pixl97 that there was so much to learn and discover during that time period, that many ideas were discoverable by only one or two people (where as things like CRISPR took dozens of researchers decades of building off of each other work to invent reliable DNA editing).
That is why we have climate change in the first place.
cities that werent firebombed were on somebody’s list to firebomb. Vienna could have met the same fate as Dresden, Dresden could have the charm of a Vienna or Paris. when you put it in perspective there are plenty more trends that are just lost through that dark age.
there are a lot of things from the 1890s to 1910s that I think would be appreciated today if people knew of them.
I see your point about a lack of modern day gumption in the physical world but I sleep at night knowing that what we do with software more than makes up for it.
https://literature.rockwellautomation.com/idc/groups/literat...
Failsafe systems are still common where safety or vast expense is at stake.
Would they?
https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/a-19th-century-vis...
In Europe, especially, it is very difficult nowadays for good and bad reasons.
Note, though, that this was for a temporary exhibition so being bold and forward-looking, with a level of showing off, what the whole point.
They had a chance to (both were huge problems at the time), they decided to spend massive amounts of resources killing each other instead..
1940s and 50s people on the other hand had a fairly decent run at it.
It's interesting not just because of the engineering that was done, but because it shows what 1900 people thought "the future" would be like. I'm guessing they expected moving sidewalks to become common around cities by now.
Mass production of cars changed many things and directions.
I love peoplemovers (like the Hong Kong Central-Mid Level escalators and the delightfully bouncy SFO walkways) and always wondered what would have to be different for us to get super-fast ones for transit.
In Boston, IMO they would be at least as good as the Green Line :)
Yeah, but the E line down South Huntington would be downright perilous :-D
In his version there were multiple levels of speed for entry/exit of transit so the main highways were going really fast.
IIRC it required some dexterity to use and sounded a bit dangerous...
Wow - those were definitely different times in terms of acceptable risks in various aspects of life.
Modern times obviously improved a lot of it, but if you're at least a bit cynical, you also have to wonder how much, due to those measures, people are "prevented" from having to build out their awareness of surroundings, dexterity and overall "aptitude for life".
What is your point?
Moving walkways along flat surfaces though? Its very hard to make them attractive. Most people like to walk a little, certainly we are built for it genetically and most people don't walk as much as they should in any case. In terms of mass transit nobody has ever got the safety and space issues to work. They only really have tended to work in airports where there are sometimes very large distances to traverse, and you need an (actually pretty slow moving for safety) solution for the elderly etc. who aren't as mobile. Even at an airport unless distances are massive and people have giant luggage most will prefer to walk, or only take the moving walkway for novelty value.
And for my dumb idea of the day: 'just' use solar panels as the walking surface as use that to power the slidewalk.
Asking for a friend.
http://templetongate.net/graphics/literature/fhchartlarge.gi...
YouTube has a couple more of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjpCVQgKZsc
Here's also an AI-upscaled/-colorized video which contains a bit of the boardwalk.
There is however an accelerating one at YYZ in Toronto [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_walkway#ThyssenKrupp_AC...
I actually found it better when disembarking because it gives a better transition to the stationary surface when stepping off.
From your Wikipedia page, it says it initially went at 11 km/h but was reduced to 9 km/h because of “frequent falls of passengers and various accidents”.
A real bummer, especially since it seems I have to traverse those passageways every time I return from the US or Europe.
In 200X, there was an IR sensor at the end of each walkway that would trigger a male voiceover warning about the end of the “moving walk”.
There was a Starbucks in one of the terminals, right at a dogleg where a section of the walk ended. I had to listen to that announcement fifty to 100 times in a dozen or so minutes, and between recording, playback, and audio compression quality, my partner and I both swore he was saying “the wooing walk”. Like a ventriloquist trying to not get caught subbing out consonants - and failing. The Wooing/Mooing Walk was a running joke the rest of our relationship.
All I recall from the first hub I remember, Denver (85?) was the water stains on the ceiling tiles. I feel like moving walks would have been novel to me but I have no memory of them.
[0]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/P._Binet...
Advantages I see:
- you can hop on and off wherever you want. That makes them useful for short trips
- no waiting time; you can hop on whenever you want. That likely makes up for lack of speed on short trips.
- if built at ground level, pedestrians can cross the line fairly easily wherever they want (hop on, hop off on the other side), so these wouldn’t split cities in half the way railways do, but only for pedestrians.
Disadvantages I see:
- slow for longer journeys
- power inefficient if there are few passengers (trains are, too, but this is a really, really long train. Imagine moving these 3km of track to move 10 persons). You can’t scale down capacity for less busy hours.
- all maintenance requires shutting down the system (in contrast, with trains, you take off the train and put another one on for most maintenance)
- ¿safety?
That’s a big advantage because, if people can’t get home from a party at 3AM, they may choose to use their car to get at the party, and, having invested in a car, and getting used to using it, may stop using public transport.
That, in turn, can lead to further decrease in service, which leads to fewer people using public transport, etc.