4 ms·
I actually strongly disagree with your skepticism on this. A long electric bus with a dedicated lane may be exactly what we need. I've been wondering for year
by FiatLuxDave 8y ago
I actually strongly disagree with your skepticism on this. A long electric bus with a dedicated lane may be exactly what we need.
I've been wondering for years why something like this wasn't in wide use.
Forget the autonomous part of this. I see advantages over both trains and buses.
Over trains:
1) the cost of a lane of road is significantly less than the cost of a mile of rail, especially if it is grade separated
Over buses:
1) less operators are needed than an equivalent number of buses
2) more axles can mean less weight per axle which means less road wear than buses. I wonder how many axles they are using and how much weight there is per axle.
Yes, there is no real new technology here. It doesn't have a nuclear engine and blow out happiness bubbles as it goes by. But, it is a configuration of existing technologies which provides a mass transit option that is needed in cities right now: the low-capital-cost train. That is what light rail was supposed to be.
Configurations can matter. Look at the design of HMS Dreadnought. That wasn't really a new technology either, but it instantly made every other battleship afloat obsolete.
- BugsJustFindMe 8y ago> A long electric bus with a dedicated lane may be exactly what we need. I agree. It's still just a bus. > I see advantages over both trains and buses. No you don't. It is a bus. It doesn't have advantages over itself. Don't conflate "short diesel bus that shares lanes with other traffic" and "bus". > Over buses: 1) less operators are needed than an equivalent number of buses Wat? We already have long buses! I don't object to putting an electric bus in its own dedicated lane. I object to this "trackless tram omg new magic technology" bs.