Advertisement

Advanced Transport Systems: Future Concepts

  • Milan JanićEmail author
Chapter
  • 2.8k Downloads

Abstract

This chapter describes five concepts of future advanced transport systems: (i) PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) systems; (ii) UFT (Underground Freight Transport) systems; (iii) ETT (Evacuated Tube Transport) system; (iv) advanced ATC (Air Traffic Control) technologies and procedures for increasing airport runway capacity; and (v) advanced STA (Supersonic Transport Aircraft).

Keywords

Service Discipline Freight Transport Sonic Boom Separation Rule Landing Sequence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. ACARE, (2010). Beyond vision 2020 (Towards 2050). The Advisory Council for Aeronautic Research in Europe, Directorate-General for Research Aeronautics and Transport. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  2. Airbus, (2012). Delivering the future: Global market forecast 2012–2030. Blagnac, Cedex, France: AIRBUS S.A.S.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. E. (2000). A review of the state of the art of personal rapid transit. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 34(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, J. E. (2005). “The Future of High-Capacity PRT”, Advanced Automated Transit Systems Conference, November 7–8. Italy: Bologna.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. E. (2007). High-capacity personal rapid transit: Rationale, attributes, status, economics, benefits, and courses of study for engineers and planners. Minnesota, US: PRT International LLC.Google Scholar
  6. Antaki, A. G. (2003). Piping and pipeline engineering, design, construction, maintenance, integrity, and repair. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boeing, (2002). 747-400 Airplane characteristics for airport planning. Seattle, WA, USA: Boeing Aircraft Company.Google Scholar
  8. Boeing, (2012). Current market outlook 2012–2031. Market Analysis. Seattle, WA, USA: Boeing Commercial Airplanes.Google Scholar
  9. CC, (1999). Automated underground transportation of Cargo: The 5 th transportation alternative for the transport of goods in congested urban areas. Bochum, Germany: Brochure, CargoCap GmbH.Google Scholar
  10. CIA, (2012). The world factbook. Washington D.C., USA: Central Intelligence Agency.Google Scholar
  11. Coen, P. (2011). Fundamental aeronautic program: Supersonic projects. 2011 Technical Conference (p. 34). Cleveland, Ohio, USA: National Aeronautic and Aerospace Administration.Google Scholar
  12. EC, (2005). Optimal Procedures and Techniques for the Improvement of Approach and Landing—OPTIMA. Sixth Framework Program, FP6-2002-Aero 1502880, Deliverable 1.2. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. EC, (2006). ATLLAS (Aerodynamic and Thermal Load Interactions with Lightweight Advanced Materials for High Speed Flight). European Commissions Sixth Framework Programme, Final Public Report. Brussels, Belgium: Thematic Priority 1.4 Aeronautic and Space.Google Scholar
  14. EC, (2007). CityMobil. European Commission, DG Research, 6th FMP (Framework Programme), Thematic priority 1.6, Sustainable Development, Global Change, and Ecosystems, Integrated Project, No. 031315, Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  15. EC, (2007a). Gaps Identification Airport, TMA, En Route and TBS—Reduced Separation Minima—RESET. Brussels, Belgium: Deliverable D4.2, EC 6th Framework Program, European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. EC, (2008). LAPCAT (Long/Term Advanced Propulsion Concepts And Technologies). Brussels, Belgium: European Commissions Sixth Framework Programme, Final Public Report, Thematic Priority 1.4 Aeronautic and Space.Google Scholar
  17. Freville, E. (2008). The RECAT project. Brussels, Belgium: Presentation of the TAAM-based Simulation Tool to Estimate Re-categorisation Impact on Runway Capacity, EUROCONTROL.Google Scholar
  18. FAA, (2010). Air traffic control,- FAA Order JO 7110.65T. Washington DC, USA: Federal Aviation Administration, US Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  19. FAA, (2011). Change 2, order JO 7110.65T. Washington DC, USA: Federal Aviation Administration, US Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
  20. FAA (2011a). NextGen implementation plan. Washington DC, USA: US Department of Transport, Federal Aviation Administration.Google Scholar
  21. FAA, (2011b). NextGen for Airports. Washington DC, USA: US Department of Transport, Federal Aviation Administration.Google Scholar
  22. FAA, (2011c). NextGen operator and Airport enablers. Washington DC, USA: US Department of Transport, Federal Aviation Admininistraion.Google Scholar
  23. GAO, (2009). Aviation and climate change: Aircraft emissions expected to grow, but technological and operational improvements and government policies can help control emissions. Report to Congressional Committees- GAO-09-554. Washington D.C., USA: United States Government Accountability Office.Google Scholar
  24. Helmke, H. (Hartmut), Hann, R., Muller, D., Witkowski S., (2009). Time based arrival management for dual threshold operations and continuous descent approaches. 8 th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2009), Napa, California, USA.Google Scholar
  25. IBRD, (2012). Air travel and energy efficiency. Transport Papers TP-38, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Washington D.C., USA.Google Scholar
  26. ICAO, (2001). Aircraft engine noise—Environmental protection, Annex 16, Chapters 3 and 4. Montreal, Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.Google Scholar
  27. ICAO, (2007). Procedures for air navigation services: Air Traffic Management. Doc. 4444/ATM501, Fifteen Edition. Montreal, Canada: International Civil Aviation Organization.Google Scholar
  28. ICAO, (2008). Wake Turbulence Aspects of Airbus A380-8/000 Aircraft. TEC/OPS/SEP-08-0294.SLG. Neuilly sur Siene, Cedex, France: International Civil Aviation Organization.Google Scholar
  29. IPCC, (1999). Aviation and the global atmosphere. Intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. IWW, INFRAS, (2004). External cost of transport: Update study. Summary. Karlsruhe, Zurich, Germany, Switzerland: Universitaet Karlsruhe, INFRAS Zurich.Google Scholar
  31. Janic, M. (2006). A model of ultimate capacity of dual-dependent parallel runways. Transportation Research Record, 1951, 76–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Janic, M. (2007a). A steeper approach procedure for increasing the ultimate capacity of closely spaced parallel runways. Transportation Research Record, 2007, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Janic, M. (2007b). The sustainability of air transportation: Quantitative analysis and assessment. UK: Ashgate Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  34. Janic, M. (2008). Towards time-based separation rules for landing aircraft. Transportation Research Record, 2052, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Janic, M. (2009). A concept for prioritizing the aircraft operations at congested airports. Transportation Research Record, 2106, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Janic, M. (2012). Modeling Effects of Different Air Traffic Control Operational Procedures, Separation Rules, and Service Disciplines on Runway Landing Capacity. to appear in Journal of Advanced Transportation 24 Aug 2012. DOI:  10.1002/atr.1208
  37. Kelly, R. J., La Berge, F. E. C. (1990). MLS: A total system approach. IEEE AES Magazine (May), p. 10.Google Scholar
  38. Kersting, M., Draganinska, S. (2005). CargoCap: Economic freight transportation in congested areas. Proceedings of the 4 th International Symposium on Underground Freight Transport by Capsule Pipelines and Other Tube/Tunnel Technologies, Shanghai, China.Google Scholar
  39. Kroo, I., (2005). Unconventional configurations for efficient supersonic flight. VKI Lecture Series on Innovative Configurations and Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft. Stanford University, USA, p. 25.Google Scholar
  40. LHR, (2010). LHR FEU Annual Report 2010. London, UK: Heathrow Airport.Google Scholar
  41. Liu, H. (2004). Feasibility of underground pneumatic freight transport in New York. Final Report, prepared for The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Columbia, Missouri, USA: Freight Pipeline Company.Google Scholar
  42. Morrison, A. S., & Winston, C. (2007). Another look at airport congestion pricing. The American Economic Review, 97(5), 1970–1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. NAS, (2001). Commercial supersonic technology: The way ahead. Washington D.C., USA: National Academy of Science, National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  44. NASA, (1999). Benefit estimates of terminal area productivity program technologies. NASA/CR—1999 208989. Virginia, USA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.Google Scholar
  45. Rijsenbrij, J. C., Pielage, B. A., & Visser, J. G. (2006). State of the art on automated (Underground) freight transport systems for the EU TREND project. Delft, The Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  46. Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2006). The geography of transport systems. New York, USA: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Rossow, V. J. (2003). Use of individual flight corridors to avoid vortex wakes. Journal of Aircraft, 40(2), 225–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. RUF, (2008). RUF international: Investment case. Frederiksberg C, Denmark: RUF International.Google Scholar
  49. Salter, R.M. (1972). The very high speed transit system. The rand corporation (p. 4874). Santa Monica, California, USA, p. 18.Google Scholar
  50. Saounatsos, G. (1998). Supersonic transport aircraft (SST): Technology readiness and development risk. ASCE Journal of Aerospace Engineering 1998, 1–16.Google Scholar
  51. Seebass, R. (1998). Supersonic aerodynamics: Lift and drag. Paper presented at the RTO AVT Course on “Fluid Dynamics Research on Supersonic Aircraft” (p. 6). Rhode-Saint-Gendse, Belgium.Google Scholar
  52. Sirohiwala Y. A., Tandon A., Vysetty R. (2007). Feasibility and economic aspects of vactrains. An Interactive Qualifying Project. Worcester, Massachusetts, USA: The Faculty of the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, M. J. T., (1989). Aircraft noise. Cambridge Aerospace Series. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Steelant, J. (2008). LAPCAT: High speed propulsion technology, in Advances on Propulsion Technology for High-Speed Aircraft. Educational notes RTO-EN-AVT-150, Paper 12. Neuilly-sur-Siene, France, pp. 12-1-12-38.Google Scholar
  55. TC, (2004). Approval of steep approach landing capability of transport category aircraft. Toronto, Canada: Aircraft Certification, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada.Google Scholar
  56. Thompson, S. D. (2002). Terminal area separation standards: Historical development and process for change. Lexington, Massachusetts, USA: Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  57. Tosic, V., & Horonjeff, R. (1976). Effects of multiple path approach procedures on runway landing capacity. Transportation Research, 10(5), 319–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Zhang, Y., Oster, D., Kumada, M., Yu, J., & Li, S. (2011). Key vacuum technology issues to be solved in evacuated tube transportation. Journal of Modern Transportation, 19(2), 110–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Visser, J. G. S. N. (2010). Underground freight transport: What is the role of the public sector ion developing a new transport mode. Netherlands Institute for Transport Policy Analysis (KiM). Den Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Transportation, Public Works and Water Management.Google Scholar
  60. Winkelmans, W., Notteboom, T. (2000). In search of strategic positioning of underground freight transport in the framework of a coherent transport policy. Proceedings of 2 nd International Symposium on Underground Freight Transportation by Capsule Pipelines and Other Tube/Tunnel Systems. 28–29 September 2000, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport and Planning DepartmentFaculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations