4 ms·
I don't think that it's such a great idea. ACCESIBILITY: In crowded cities you need people to get in and out of the bus quickly, meaning lots of doors and very
by thatfatcat 16y ago
I don't think that it's such a great idea.
ACCESIBILITY:
In crowded cities you need people to get in and out of the bus quickly, meaning lots of doors and very few steps. Also let's not forget wheel chairs. How could an elderly person climb all those steps to get out of the bus? How about someone with a baby in a buggy?
INFRASTRUCTURE:
Yes, it's cheaper than a subway, but that's the only advantage. When this bus makes a turn, at least some part of the traffic must be stopped. Cars will crash into the bus without doubt. The bus stops will be expensive to build.
SUGGESTION:
Spare two lanes and build a light rail, separated from the traffic by fences solid enough to prevent cars from landing on the rail. Make all intersections with regular traffic at different grades (overpass or underpass).
It's a proven technology, no accesibility issues, cheap stations, completely separated from the rest of the traffic (because of this it can become completely automated).
- cabalamat 16y agoWhy not just build the light rail over the highway, like they do in Bangkok?
- thatfatcat 16y agoIt's more expensive than on street level. But they could build the rail over the highway in very crowded areas, keep it at street level in areas where land is cheaper, and even go underground for short distances (ie: to pass crowded intersections). It seems way more flexible to me than this bus idea.
- GFischer 16y agoI hadn't read about the rail in Bangkok, looks cool: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bangkok/ http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bangkok/
- blahedo 16y agoYou make this sound like a new idea---many cities have had elevated trains as part of their mass transit systems, and some still do. Chicago is famous for it (and the Chicago El is more than a hundred years old).