4 ms·
I think this is feasible in concept and the right built-up environment, and a lot cheaper than susbways / elevated rail(s). But, about providing context: * It
by zhte415 10y ago
I think this is feasible in concept and the right built-up environment, and a lot cheaper than susbways / elevated rail(s).
But, about providing context:
* It is a very common occurance for 'Chinese Traffic' (nice pun) to ridicule any idea. The consencus commentary can turn on a dime and be quite vicious.
* That the Global Times, the English language tabloid government mouthpiece paper turn on the project suggests the wrong stakeholders were brought on-board to make this work, or they weren't senior enough. The alternative scenario: That this goes against key national development goals, or pet projects senior-enough officials have an interest or thumb in the pie of, get displaced.
Of course, the ultimate alternative, which is quite simple and feasible today: dedicated bus lanes at peak traffic times of the day, or all day. If you choose to drive, you know there's congestion. Don't punish others else for over-proportional use of the road: size of a car. A bus lane in my city in China typically sees 2-15 buses per minute. That's a lot of people.
- snaky 10y ago> I think this is feasible in concept and the right built-up environment It need a rails. No car higher than 2.1 meters can ride under this - despite the fact 4.5 meters is standard on Chinese roads. How could it be feasible?
- amelius 10y agoYes, it needs tracks for the bus. It also needs guardrails for the cars, to prevent them from hitting the wheels of the bus. Also, where cars enter the road, there needs to be a gate which ensures cars do not exceed the maximum height. With those three things in place, it seems like a very viable concept.
- snaky 10y agoSo it would need all the infrastructure that regular train needs, but would be slower, many times more expensive, and being non-stop havoc and rage to the roads. What a progress indeed.
- ehhhh 10y agoCitations needed.
- vonmoltke 10y agoThis is the point I was trying to raise in the discussion a couple days ago. Many people here seem to be hand-waving away the infrastructure this thing needs and ascribing to it some sort of magical ability to float over traffic that it doesn't have.
- snaky 10y agoExactly. Not so many people these days read "The Roads Must Roll" by Robert A. Heinlein I suppose.
- amelius 10y agoBut I suppose it wouldn't require as much space as a separate train track.
- GVIrish 10y agoI think the need for rails is probably the deal breaker. You'd have to repave 2 lanes of asphalt to add the tracks, so it would be very expensive compared to buses and might even approach the cost of light rail. The height issue just means it would have to be on roads that are 3 lanes or wider, so taller traffic can move around it. I don't think the height issue is as big of a deal as the tracks. If they could make this bus using regular tires it would make more sense but then it becomes potentially more dangerous to drivers in cars. In theory the bus wouldn't have much need to change lanes but in practice any driver that did so while cars were underneath could cause a terrible accident.
- GVIrish 10y agoI think the need for rails is probably the deal breaker. You'd have to repave 2 lanes of asphalt to add the tracks, so it would be very expensive compared to buses and might even approach the cost of light rail. The height issue just means it would have to be on roads that are 3 lanes or wider, so taller traffic can move around it. I don't think the height issue is as big of a deal as the tracks. If they could make this bus using regular tires it would make more sense but then it becomes potentially more dangerous to drivers in cars. In theory the bus wouldn't have much need to change lanes but in practice any driver that did so while cars were underneath could cause a terrible accident.
- smoyer 10y agoAll this is true but the real question is "Why would you build this?" If you look at the roadway required, you need two lanes for traffic, plus two lanes for the "tracks" plus five safety buffers - one between the two lanes and one on each side of the track. From the pictures, it looks to me like you could have two lanes of traffic and one light rail in the same amount of space. And this configuration requires one less safety buffer. And light rail would probably fit under existing infrastructure (bridges and utility lines).
- mc32 10y agoIt's good to look at things from different perspectives, and this bus was certainly that, but ultimately it looks like an automated monorail would be more appropriate. An elevated monorail's mooring infrastructure takes about a lane's worth of surface area whereas this required barriers, guard rails, two sets of guiding rails, low height restrictions, all the directional constraints of regular rail, etc. Any vehicles involved in a collision with this would be flattened. The undercarriage is very bulky. Nice idea to try but in practice the existing solutions are superior.