A Modern Update to Disney's Magic Highways

[kernals12]

I don't know about heating coils, but I expect new technologies to keep major roads free of snow/ice. I also expect some major roads and especially freeways to incorporate a recharging system to allow electric vehicles to operate long distances without needing to stop for long recharging stops. The trucking industry will be the push behind this as they can put their self-driving trucks on the highway in LA and drive non-stop to the East Coast, with possibly a sleeper cab in front for a security/admin person.

If solar power reduces the cost of energy by an order of magnitude as I suspect it will, why wouldn't we use heating coils? We would be freed from the burdens of snow and ice and the incredible environmental damage caused by road salt.

Probably not. Concrete is one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, producing 8% of our CO2 annually. It also will continue to emit that CO2 for centuries, even if our civilization collapses. Environmentalists are already lobbying to cut concrete use in construction. I expect new highway surface products using waste like shredded tires and recycled plastic mixed with a polymer binder will eventually replace concrete on major projects with asphalt continuing to play a major role in paving. Some of these new materials will allow construction underwater, much like Roman Empire concrete did using volcanic ash as an ingredient.

Half of all those emissions are from the use of fossil fuels to generate the heat needed for making cement. And don't forget, asphalt warms the planet through the urban heat island effect.

This would require a commitment to building a taxpayer-funded, expensive, cross-country maglev network. I think that's less realistic than Elon Musk converting his hyperloop concept to freight transportation (easier than you might expect if he can get his SF/LA line running and substituting a hyperloop pod container as the cargo container). I don't foresee long-distance mag-lev anything since it would require the government to pay for and build a system that is incompatible with other transportation; high-speed rail freight is more likely with improved tech to handle steep grades. The long-distance trucking industry (Schneider, Roadway, etc) and rail interests would both heavily lobby against a maglev system.

Railroads could be turned into maglev.

[kernals12]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Correct me if I'm wrong, buy you don't work right?

I do now. I landed a job in February.

[Dirt Roads]

Railroads could be turned into maglev.

You've probably heard this from me before, but Maglev technology (1880) is older than the electric traction motors used in railroading (1886).  The first practical use was an electric trolley car in Richmond, Virginia in 1888.  The developers of this early Maglev quickly realized that the large air gap between the vehicle [electromagnets] and the wayside [electromagnets] was extremely inefficient.  Even today, Maglev propulsion is very inefficient and only useful in a few certain instances: (1) the need for significant accelerating force sufficient to overcome high aerodynamic drag at high speeds (say, over 300 mph); or (2) the ability to develop a huge breakaway force (Maglev-propelled rockets and magnetically-propelled aircraft carrier launchers).  There have been some creative attempts to mechanically reduce the air gap between the vehicle and the guideway, but all of them have serious flaws when it comes to negotiating curves and changes in grade.

In a nutshell, if we plow everything straight and level between two points, Maglev can work to transport large numbers of passengers but will be electrically inefficient.  This works best as a two-lane shuttle (shorter distances, say 10 miles) or a two-lane "loop" with transfer tables to change tracks at each end.  But the United States is already having a tough time justifying plowing everything *almost* straight and flat to develop high-speed rail (which is much less expensive).

[texaskdog]

-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation.  I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.

People predicted that 70 years ago.  It didn't happen.  Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer?  Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?

This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.

Well by now most of have proven most work can be done from home at least!

[Max Rockatansky]

-Thanks to automation, we'll probably be working less. Even in a pessimistic case, I foresee a 32 hour work week with 6 weeks vacation.  I think 13 weeks is the maximum, beyond which point we'd suffer from severe boredom. And this doesn't count the time spent on household chores by labor saving devices. A lot of this free time will be spent traveling. For that, we'll need improvements to transportation to popular recreational areas.

People predicted that 70 years ago.  It didn't happen.  Ask yourself, what is more profitable for an employer?  Employing the same number of people and giving them shorter days with more time off, or employing fewer people and having the remaining people work just as hard as before (if not harder)?

This is why good blue collar jobs are mostly extinct in this country and why it's harder for college grads to break into their career fields, while many professional workers work 60-80 hour weeks.

Well by now most of have proven most work can be done from home at least!

Sure with white collar but not really with blue collar.  One of the big reasons COVID took off as much as it did here in the Central Valley of California was that the agriculture industry couldn't afford not to have people come in. 

[kernals12]

Railroads could be turned into maglev.

You've probably heard this from me before, but Maglev technology (1880) is older than the electric traction motors used in railroading (1886).  The first practical use was an electric trolley car in Richmond, Virginia in 1888.  The developers of this early Maglev quickly realized that the large air gap between the vehicle [electromagnets] and the wayside [electromagnets] was extremely inefficient.  Even today, Maglev propulsion is very inefficient and only useful in a few certain instances: (1) the need for significant accelerating force sufficient to overcome high aerodynamic drag at high speeds (say, over 300 mph); or (2) the ability to develop a huge breakaway force (Maglev-propelled rockets and magnetically-propelled aircraft carrier launchers).  There have been some creative attempts to mechanically reduce the air gap between the vehicle and the guideway, but all of them have serious flaws when it comes to negotiating curves and changes in grade.

In a nutshell, if we plow everything straight and level between two points, Maglev can work to transport large numbers of passengers but will be electrically inefficient. This works best as a two-lane shuttle (shorter distances, say 10 miles) or a two-lane "loop" with transfer tables to change tracks at each end.  But the United States is already having a tough time justifying plowing everything *almost* straight and flat to develop high-speed rail (which is much less expensive).

Between room temperature superconductors and extremely low cost electricity, I think it will pencil out.

[Scott5114]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[kernals12]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR

[Rothman]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR

Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.

[kernals12]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR

Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.

Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.

[Max Rockatansky]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR

Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.

Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.

Yes, but one would expect a 40% turnover in an entry level job like retail.  To say the entire job market is like that is far fetched, especially when you get to professional level employment. 

[kernals12]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR

Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.

Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.

Yes, but one would expect a 40% turnover in an entry level job like retail.  To say the entire job market is like that is far fetched, especially when you get to professional level employment.

It's lower because professionals are more satisfied with their jobs

[Dirt Roads]

Railroads could be turned into maglev.

You've probably heard this from me before, but Maglev technology (1880) is older than the electric traction motors used in railroading (1886).  The first practical use was an electric trolley car in Richmond, Virginia in 1888.  The developers of this early Maglev quickly realized that the large air gap between the vehicle [electromagnets] and the wayside [electromagnets] was extremely inefficient.  Even today, Maglev propulsion is very inefficient and only useful in a few certain instances: (1) the need for significant accelerating force sufficient to overcome high aerodynamic drag at high speeds (say, over 300 mph); or (2) the ability to develop a huge breakaway force (Maglev-propelled rockets and magnetically-propelled aircraft carrier launchers).  There have been some creative attempts to mechanically reduce the air gap between the vehicle and the guideway, but all of them have serious flaws when it comes to negotiating curves and changes in grade.

In a nutshell, if we plow everything straight and level between two points, Maglev can work to transport large numbers of passengers but will be electrically inefficient. This works best as a two-lane shuttle (shorter distances, say 10 miles) or a two-lane "loop" with transfer tables to change tracks at each end.  But the United States is already having a tough time justifying plowing everything *almost* straight and flat to develop high-speed rail (which is much less expensive).

Between room temperature superconductors and extremely low cost electricity, I think it will pencil out.

I wish it were so.  Superconductors will not work on Maglev trains because of the huge air gap.  On the other hand, superconductors are great for traction motors (tiny air gaps between rotor and stator) and will be quite useful on trains if the "room temperature" technology ever becomes practical.  The Kamen motors on the Jacksonville Skyway monorail trains work quite well, even considering that they can't quite make it through a full day service without a recharge of liquid nitrogen. 

There are two ways to flip the equation.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are mechanical techniques to reduce the air gap (geometric designs that maintain a tight air gap while still allowing for a healthy amount of levitation.  This makes bending difficult.  The other requires a hybrid technique that has never been used before.  If you think of Maglev as a rotary motor that has been laid out flat, you can place the active electromagnetic part (stator) on either the vehicle or the wayside.  So far, all of the wayside stator Maglev technologies have been low-speed (top speeds about 25 mph) because of the huge cost of placing continuous power and stator sections along the guideway.  If you were to utilize both wayside stators and carborne stators, you could significantly improve the efficiency of accelerating out of a station, then switch over to the carborne stators to maintain speeds.  This would only require wayside stators in the station departure areas, which still may be very costly for high speed trains (excess of 300 mph).  The current design of carborne stators would still be needed to [rescue] a train that stopped somewhere other than station platforms.

There is a dirty little secret about wayside stators (now, include both Maglev and linear induction motors).  Depending on where the vehicle "lands", an active stator may accelerate the train in the wrong direction.  LIM systems and low-speed Maglev solve this issue with traction wheels and directional clutches.  And if we can't solve this issue, we might as well install traction [rotary] motors to solve the problem of directional acceleration.  All that being said, this might not be terribly expensive nor add extra weight to add to a Maglev train if ever your "room temperature" superconductor technology becomes practical.

It might be a control system nightmare

[kernals12]

-Thanks to efficient electric motors, helicopters will be used much more, as ambulances, police cruisers, and tow trucks

This is tricky, because there are a lot of air space regulations in most developed countries. I expect it first in places like the UAE and Angola; both are urbanizing more quickly than their roads can handle and the political environment would be more supportive. The FAA and the airline lobby will fight this in the US until the technology can be proven elsewhere.

Air ambulances and police helicopters are already a thing.

[skluth]

-Thanks to efficient electric motors, helicopters will be used much more, as ambulances, police cruisers, and tow trucks

This is tricky, because there are a lot of air space regulations in most developed countries. I expect it first in places like the UAE and Angola; both are urbanizing more quickly than their roads can handle and the political environment would be more supportive. The FAA and the airline lobby will fight this in the US until the technology can be proven elsewhere.

Air ambulances and police helicopters are already a thing.

You ignored your visions of police cruisers (much different from how we currently use police copters) and tow trucks, which were what I thought absurd. Air ambulances are mostly used in difficult to access areas like the mountains around my home where I've seen them numerous times. When you mix things that are currently common and futuristic things, there's bound to be confusion.

[Rothman]

Can we get back on topic?

No

It may be more profitable for the employer but the workers won't be happy and will instead go to another employer who offers better working conditions. And white collar workers have always worked long hours.

What do you suppose caused my last workplace to be so miserable? People were deeply unhappy about the working conditions, but instead of going to another employer, they stuck around cause at least there they had health insurance.

40% of the American workforce turns over either voluntarily or involuntarily every year. That's enough to create competition for workers among employers

Ppppppppffffffthathahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

sigh
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/JTS000000000000000TSR

Looks like you're confusing someone taking issue with your conclusions rather than questioning the data itself.

Why don't you just google "employee retention"? Low paying industries are actually the ones with the highest rate of turnover.

Yes, but one would expect a 40% turnover in an entry level job like retail.  To say the entire job market is like that is far fetched, especially when you get to professional level employment.

It's lower because professionals are more satisfied with their jobs

Somebody's ready for the Politburo.

[skluth]

I don't know about heating coils, but I expect new technologies to keep major roads free of snow/ice. I also expect some major roads and especially freeways to incorporate a recharging system to allow electric vehicles to operate long distances without needing to stop for long recharging stops. The trucking industry will be the push behind this as they can put their self-driving trucks on the highway in LA and drive non-stop to the East Coast, with possibly a sleeper cab in front for a security/admin person.

If solar power reduces the cost of energy by an order of magnitude as I suspect it will, why wouldn't we use heating coils? We would be freed from the burdens of snow and ice and the incredible environmental damage caused by road salt.

First, solar power doesn't work at night when the most damage happens when roads are experiencing freeze/thaw cycles. I love solar too (I live in Palm Springs and it's everywhere as are wind turbines in the nearby pass), but I personally don't see it used in this manner even with massive battery storage. I think there are better and easier solutions that don't risk turning the road into a massive electrical conductor. You disagree. I do agree with you on the need to reduce salt use on infrastructure, but that's another discussion.

Probably not. Concrete is one of the worst CO2 polluters on the planet, producing 8% of our CO2 annually. It also will continue to emit that CO2 for centuries, even if our civilization collapses. Environmentalists are already lobbying to cut concrete use in construction. I expect new highway surface products using waste like shredded tires and recycled plastic mixed with a polymer binder will eventually replace concrete on major projects with asphalt continuing to play a major role in paving. Some of these new materials will allow construction underwater, much like Roman Empire concrete did using volcanic ash as an ingredient.

Half of all those emissions are from the use of fossil fuels to generate the heat needed for making cement. And don't forget, asphalt warms the planet through the urban heat island effect.

So you've knocked down other CO2 emissions from concrete down to only 4% if we stop producing concrete, but you want to increase concrete production which will add even more to the long-term damage to the atmosphere. This is why I expect other materials to replace concrete. I'm not fond of asphalt. I expect it to be reduced or eliminated in many urban plans, especially in wealthier countries. But it is a quick, inexpensive paving option (depending on availability) for many poorer countries, especially in rural areas and sprawling suburban slums.

[skluth]

The workplace discussion has gotten out of hand. Please take it elsewhere.

[kernals12]

One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!

[Max Rockatansky]

One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!

The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition.  Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1.  There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip. 

[Rothman]

One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!

The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition.  Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1.  There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.

We have had slot cars for decades.

[kernals12]

One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!

The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition.  Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1.  There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.

But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.

[Max Rockatansky]

One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!

The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition.  Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1.  There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.

But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.

That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series.  With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption.  Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires.  So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor. 

[kernals12]

One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!

The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition.  Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1.  There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.

But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.

That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series.  With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption.  Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires.  So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.

But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. 

[Max Rockatansky]

One interesting application I've heard for inductive pavement is for race tracks. Imagine how racing would change if drivers never needed to refuel!

The pit road is some of the best stuff in racing, it can changes the course of the entire competition.  Even if the cars didn't need to refuel they would still need to change tires since they have essentially have what would equate a tread wear rating of 1.  There isn't really a way around that kind of thing either as racing tires are designed to lay down as much rubber as possible for maximum grip.

But obviously they would need to pit less frequently.

That depends on the racing series and "may" be true of certain lighter weight open wheel series.  With heavier racing cars (NASCAR spec Stock Cars especially) the tire wear often out paces fuel consumption.  Bottom line is though, fresh tires are going to equate to better grip than worn tires.  So it really won't relegate pitting to a thing of the past even if fuel wasn't a factor.

But if the pavement were conductive then you could have the cars levitate so they wouldn't need tires. 

I suspect that auto racing that has actual drivers in the cars will never go towards something levitated given that would likely exceed current speeds handily and negate pretty much all safety advancements.  Auto racing has pretty much already hit the speeds where G-Forces on the body during crashes can become serious (if not fatal) and most series have made en effort to slow the cars.  NASCAR has long used air intake restriction plates for large super speedways to reduce top speed whereas most open wheel series have reduced engine displacement.