Presentation 11-20-06

I am moving towards a global transportation network visualized in four dimensions. Right now I am focused on direct tunnels connecting the three global cities NYC, London, and Tokyo, that would provide passenger and freight access via high speed rail.



I chose my site based on interpretations from the mapimations. I noticed that in the London map, (which I believe is the most accurate of the three), East Asia and the US feel the greatest "pull" towards London. You can see this in the highlighted areas of the map above. I believe this pulling is due to the frequency of travel to these locations and the number of direct flights available. I discussed this in more depth in earlier blogs.

The following three maps show the transformation of the map in the fourth dimension with the global tunnel network implemented. The shift is very subtle, but it is an interesting exercise. These maps were generated in the same manner that the travel time maps were in the mapimation phase. The gray underlaid map is the geographic map. The colored map is the world mapped according to time.







Program:

• Railway for freight transport,
• Maglev passenger train railway (max speed 361 mph),
  
• pipelines for fluid and aggregate transport,
  
• airducts and ventillation shafts that penetrate the surface above the tunnel,
  
• maintenance shafts
  

Advanced modeling tools:

I am using morphing to create animations of maps that show how the proposal affects travel time. I would like to try morphing a globe I have modeled, but I am still trying to find the best way to do this. So far, the move mesh tool hasn't been too helpful.

Here is a Quicktime VR of a wire frame globe with the tunnels in place:
http://people.clemson.edu/~nathana/earthwirefmz.mov

Here is an animation of the above, slightly altered.



Using a perfected 3d globe, I would like to eventually use the same morphing techniques used in the mapimation to show how the tunnel effects travel time.

For the final review, I think it would be nice to have at least one or two critics in person while Ron and any other critics are connected with Skype and video, like we do when we have group conferences. I think speaking in person with the reviewers would result in better communication, clearer understanding, and more interactive questions. We could project our computer screens with a projector to present to those online and those in the room simultaneously.