Please find below the
Please review the following Judges' comments:
It is not clear what this proposal is actually about. The author should have focused on one particular issue.
This is an interesting proposal, especially since it combines legislative efforts with a technical solution. However, I have some doubts: (1) It is not entirely clear to me whether the proposed legislation will offer enough incentive to disrupt the transportation sector. Also, technical solutions which are available to fulfill its requirements are not fully discussed. (2) JPods: While an interesting idea, I am missing a more detailed discussion of costs, potential benefits and feasibility. (3) The proposal: The proposal needs to be streamlined. Talk about the "why", then the "how" (first in general, then in detail, then provide a first-order feasibility test. Right now, there's lots of unrelated content. The biggest challenge which is the barriers to implementation is not really discussed.
The authors added a lot of interesting materials. The proposal for a regulatory system that supports right of way access above existing road infrastructure to be utilized by elevated systems is definitely interesting. What I had requested in my earlier comments is to clearly focus and spell out how that legislation piece should be crafted to make it acceptable by the municipalities. Unfortunately, the new material seems scattered and lacks focus. The specific legislative text proposal has not been included nor any of its potential drawbacks and resistance analyzed. Some examples: this is clearly a public resource: how should it be allocated to the claimed investors for a fair share? Why 5% share and not more/less? Why not a bidding system? How would you respond to stakeholders like nearby residents and businesses that would be averse to the visual or other implications to them? While I am very supportive of transport electrification and creating infrastructure that integrates RE in the design, I am not sure about many of JPods' claims as I think these are not based on concrete analysis. For instance, one claim says they are 15X cheaper than buses, but did not specify load factors, construction costs, energy costs or regions? I wish the authors could refine the chapters regarding proposed legislation and resubmit it for future Colab contests.
This is an interesting idea, and, if implemented extensively, could have significant positive impact. The writeup is far to long though, and needs to focus on the concept and direct benefits. I am not sure the political barriers have been sufficiently addressed, and I think that the benefits described will only be realized once there is a vary large network in place, which will take time. The basic concept looks sound though.
This is an interesting take by essentially proposing regulation for the rights of way for private elevated rail. I do think that the language and legal implications need to be improved but the idea is interesting. The jpods themselves are another variant of the proposals but with some prototyping work. I would certainly like to see the regulation being proposed.
This is an interesting proposal. I think it needs a bit more material on the JPods themselves to give a clearer picture of how the technology compares to existing modes of transport, and therefore how it could be a benefit. It could also be clearer whether there is evidence that enough energy would be generated by solar to power the pods consistently? What happens on cloudy days, night time etc.? Are the solar cells are plugged into the grid? It would also be interesting to know if other situations have arisen in the past where Rights of Way have been guaranteed by regulation. Or is this that has never been guaranteed, and always granted on a case-by-case basis?
No comments have been posted.