Waze is brilliant (when it is not being stoopid)

Back when navigation systems first became popular we had a lunch table discussion about their virtues at work. I remember making the point that someone with local knowledge of traffic patterns would make better decisions than a system which solely relied on a map and posted speed limits. I cited cabbies and fire truck drivers in Manhattan as examples.

Of course, technology marched on and it was not long before two major changes to navigation systems came along; First, real time traffic conditions were added to the decision making process, improving the initial selection of the route and facilitating detours around backups during travel. Second, the storing of historical traffic patterns on a server allowed apps such as Waze and Google Maps to estimate travel times based on time of day and day of the week thus leading to the selection of a better route.

Yet with all of the improvements, my original contention that local knowledge trumps navigation technology still holds true. I use Waze to navigate and have found that it makes both good decisions and stoopid decisions.

The most common stoopid decision on my way to work occurs as I approach the intersection of Algonquin Road and Old Sutton Road heading east. The straight forward way for me to get to work at that point is to continue east to Barrington Road and turn south towards work. Waze however often suggests that in order to save one minute I turn right on Old Sutton Road and take a zig zag route additionally using Penny Road, Route 59, and Route 72. The problem with Waze's suggestion is that the Old Sutton Road route includes a two way stop sign crossing of a high volume 55 MPH two lane highway plus a subsequent grade crossing of the Canadian National railroad tracks. Getting blocked by a slow moving freight train is not fun. My preferred alternate, which is to continue straight on Algonquin Road to Barrington Road, has no stop signs and a bridge over the railroad tracks. When I ignore Waze and it recalculates there is at most a one minute time difference and often no time difference between the two routes.

My ride home features Waze suggesting a similar reversal of the route. The left turn from Old Sutton Road onto Algonquin at a stop sign is pretty much a killer during the evening rush hour with continuous streams of cars on Algonquin Road from both the left and right. Nobody in their right mind would take Waze's route and attempt that left turn however Waze suggests it every commute home.

Waze's stoopid decisions are not limited to my commute and perhaps you have noticed some of the same blunders:

Waze frequently takes me to a tough left turn at a stop sign when I could have been on a nearby parallel road allowing me to make the left turn at a traffic signal.

Waze has routed me on roads that are closed to through traffic due to construction.

Waze has routed me on roads which are marked by signage as having no though traffic allowed.

On a commute home last winter when the roads were icy and traffic was slowed Waze came up with a clever route that was less traveled. It was less traveled because it included a road with a dangerous steep hill that nobody in their right mind would drive on when icy. Some times faster is not better.

Despite all of this I do like Waze and use it frequently go get from here to there. I'll take some stoopid decisions over the good old days of navigating by maps.

Arrivo's Denver Hyperloop, is it hyper-poop?

Earlier this week there were several online news articles about Hyperloop firm Arrivo creating above ground tubes along side an existing highway that would allow cars to zip along at 200 MPH between downtown Denver and the Denver International Airport. Cars would travel on trays, with the trays being magnetically levitated. The system would be powered by electricity. Unlike competitor Hyperloop One's concept of a hyperloop which hopes to achieve higher speeds, Arrivo will not attempt to lower the air pressure in the tubes.

These articles really got me thinking. Thinking not about what a wonderful idea it is, but instead thinking about how every article I read about hyperloops is lacking in details and fails to address any of the possible problems they may encounter in building and maintaining said hyperloop. For example, Arrivo co-founder Brogan BramBrogan stated that the tubes could transport 20,000 vehicles an hour. Sounds wonderful, but I have trouble figuring out how this could possibly be implemented. Let's take a look at what it takes to get cars into and out of the tube. Remember that the cars are going to travel on trays. Therefore every car that enters the tube has to drive onto a tray which is then accelerated up to 200 MPH. At the end of the journey the tray has to be decelerated and when it has come to a complete stop the car can drive off of the tray and go on its merry way.

Let's investigate what it will take to achieve the stated goal of 20,000 cars an hour. Dividing 20,000 by 3,600 (the number of seconds in an hour) we need to feed a smidgen over 5.5 cars a second into the tube. Assume the the following steps are required to get cars into the tube using a single loading lane:

A car drives onto a tray

The tray heads down the mag lev track and merges onto the 200 MPH main tube track.

Another tray is moved into position so that the next car can drive onto it.

If the above process takes 15 seconds, which all things considered is probably a low estimate, there would have to be over 80 such lanes to feed 5.5 cars a second into the tube. 80 plus lanes! This would require a football size plot of land on each end of the tube just to handle the incoming cars. As if that is not enough of a a formidable challenge, how exactly do you get 22,000 cars an hour into the loading area without creating gridlock in all of the surrounding roads? Remember, the whole idea of spending a zillion dollars on the hyperloop is to reduce traffic on the highway between downtown Denver and the airport. Wouldn't this just create a bigger mess?

As if figuring out how to load cars into the tube isn't bad enough, the problems at the other end of the tube are worse where you have to get 5.5 cars a second off of their trays and onto the roads leading away from the tube. Needless to say, traffic on the roads leading away cannot back up or the unloading process will grind to a halt requiring all trays in the tube to slow down or stop.

There is one last challenge at the end of the tube and I view it as the toughest one to deal with. All trays have to decelerate from 200 MPH to a stop so that the cars can drive off of their trays. The trays however cannot decelerate on the main track in the tube or there will be a ripple effect back down the track and every tray behind it will have to slow down. Therefore trays will have to be “switched” onto multiple deceleration lanes which will then feed the unloading lanes. This switching will have to be done at 200 MPH! Good luck with that.

Considering all of the above I highly doubt that a rate of 20,000 cars an hour can be achieved. I'm not even so sure that 10,000 cars an hour is doable. Get much lower than 10,000 cars and hour and it would be a heck of a lot cheaper to simply add a lane in each direction. I can't wait to see updates on this project.