4 ms·
> 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
by 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.