China Unveils 'Straddling Bus' Design To Beat Traffic Jams (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A Beijing company has unveiled spectacularly futuristic designs for a pollution-busting, elevated bus capable of gliding over the nightmarish mega-jams for which urban China has become notorious. The "straddling bus," which owes more to Blade Runner than China's car-clogged highways, is supported by two legs that run along rails laid along the roadside. Those legs allow the Transit Explore Bus, or TEB's giant frame to glide high above the gridlock at speeds of up to 60km per hour. Equally, vehicles that are less than two metres high will be able to drive freely underneath the bus, even when it is stationary. "The biggest advantage is that the bus will save lots of road space," Song Youzhou, the project's chief engineer, told Xinhua, China's official news agency. Song claimed his buses, capable of transporting up to 1,400 commuters, could be produced for 20% of the price of an underground train and rolled out far more quickly since the supporting infrastructure was relatively simple. One TEB could replace 40 conventional buses, he said.You can watch the concept video here. Interestingly a very similar -- if not the exact same -- concept has come out of China before. Not sure what kind of developments have been made in the six years since then.

Comments

Literally six years old, still not real/practical

[cam_macleod]

Old news. Just new hype.
http://www.chinahush.com/2010/...

Not a real thing, not practical in almost any area that needs high capacity transit, and just a distraction from real things we already know how to build but refuse to pay for.

2 meters high.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Better not have anything on top of the SUV. Probably need guardrails too, to prevent people from driving into the sides of the bus.

Re:2 meters high.

[OzPeter]

Better not have anything on top of the SUV. Probably need guardrails too, to prevent people from driving into the sides of the bus.

Also say goodbye to sharing roads with commercial vehicles - including normal buses.

Re:2 meters high.

[Errol backfiring]

Not even my bike fits under that bus. And although a Whike is quite high, it is road legal and conforms to the traffic sizes (which are based on a firetruck where I live). 2 meters is way too low to be able to pass regular traffic. The first van or truck would stop the bus dead in its tracks.

Re:2 meters high.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or those high vehicles could just use the other lane. Make it a rule or something...

Re:2 meters high.

[wonkey_monkey]

Probably need guardrails too, to prevent people from driving into the sides of the bus.

Other videos I've seen have shown it running on raised rails that run all along either side of the ride.

Re:2 meters high.

[freeze128]

That's WAY more expensive than just repainting some lines on the road.

Re:2 meters high.

[ljw1004]

Not even my bike fits under that bus. And although a Whike is quite high, it is road legal and conforms to the traffic sizes (which are based on a firetruck where I live). 2 meters is way too low to be able to pass regular traffic. The first van or truck would stop the bus dead in its tracks.

If the bus runs on surface streets (like they do today) then it will be stopped dead in its tracks by a whike, van and truck. So this proposal is clearly no worse than the status quo.

But this bus won't take space away from other vehicles, and won't be stopped by regular cars. So this proposal is clearly better than the status quo in the majority of situations.

Re:2 meters high.

[rhazz]

If a couple of taller vehicles pull up behind it though, then all traffic now moves as fast as the bus which can be impeded by one tall vehicle in front of it. I think it's a neat idea but definitely would require special rules for existing vehicles on the road, or additional lanes for taller vehicles.

Re:2 meters high.

[ilsaloving]

So... China doesn't have trucks? Or any sort of motorized conveyance that is 2+ meters high?

There are so many things wrong with the logistics of this design I don't know where to begin.

Re:2 meters high.

[ilsaloving]

Unless there is a blanket ban on 2+ meter vehicles on any road that uses these busses, this is a non-starter. All you need is one single truck to screw it all up.

This is a hell of a lot of money to spend, and infrastructure to build, just to maintain status quo. The solution would have to *guarantee* that it is not just better, but *significantly* better, than the status quo, to be even worth considering, let along funnelling the billions of yuan this would cost to build.

Re:2 meters high.

[LunaticTippy]

Your bike is cool, I love the idea of a pedal/sail powered road craft that works in cities.

Re:2 meters high.

[crimson tsunami]

Or how about they just use the other lane(s) on the road?

Re:2 meters high.

[ilsaloving]

Because it's not that easy, if you just spent a couple minutes to actually picture it in your head and think it through. These are busses, which means they need to stay on the right-most lanes of the road because that's where people get on and off. Assuming the bus is 2 lanes wide as pictured, you would need a road that had a minimum of 3 lanes each way, at all times. Furthermore, that means the leftmost lane would be the only available lane for tall vehicles.

Ok fine, but how does traffic actually *enter* the road? Typically through entrances on the *right* side, because that's the overwhelmingly cheapest and simplest way to do it. So any tall vehicle is still going to exist in the right-most lanes for at least a short period of time, assuming traffic isn't so bad that they simply can't move to the left-most lane.

The list just goes on and on and on.

If you ever ask any question in the form of "Well, why don't they just...", you should ask yourself the same question first, and try to answer it.

Re:2 meters high.

[crimson tsunami]

If you even spent a couple of seconds, and saw the first frame of the video, not even open it and watch it. You would see the bus thingy is in the left 2 lanes of the three lane road...
Don't assume they need to do what you think they need to do. Especially if they have already showed you you are wrong.

This is proposed as a replacement to a subway, I'm sure they can afford a few pedestrian bridges etc. and still be cheaper.

PS. I think this is a silly concept and totally impractical. Think if you can come up with some actual reasons why this time.

PPS. Spoiler alert since you didn't watch the video, but the passengers get on and off via the top anyway :)

Re:2 meters high.

[ilsaloving]

You're correct, I didn't watch the video. I thought the concept was fraught with peril and logistical nightmares, just from the single frame alone.

Having watched the video just now... it's even worse and more ill conceived than I thought. You would have to construct aboveground bus stations at every stop. Basically the concept has all the costs, construction and logistical nightmares of a subway or monorail system, with none of the benefits, and it opens itself to other dangers like potential collisions from random vehicles 'n whatnot.

Also please notice that the video is a *simulation* which addresses not one of the concerns I mentioned in my post. For example, shows nothing about how to deal with traffic entering and leaving the thoroughfare. It makes the delightful assumption that the cars in the lanes will just happily sit in those lanes while the bus drives past. If you've driven, well, *anywhere*, you will know that traffic is not even remotely as civil and unchaotic as that.

And I see no reason why I need to come up with anything to counter this joke of a system. I'm not the one trying to convince a city/country to invest an incredible amount of money on an idiotic concept. And we already have other options available. They're called a conventional transit system that includes busses, subways, and perhaps monorails. The only reason they arn't "working", is because basic infrastructure isn't glamourous and eye-popping, so people don't want to invest in it despite the obvious need slapping them in the face.

Re:2 meters high.

[crimson tsunami]

Completely laughable response.

So you jump up and down telling me I should think first, but you didn't watch the video. Or even look closely enough at the first picture to see what you were saying was already completely wrong. You thought the concept was fraught with "peril and logistical nightmares", but only bothered to tell us about 1 concern, 2+ meter vehicles. And that was obviously completely unfounded, just from a quick glance at the first picture. High vehicles could still use the other lanes (just as you were told), and enter and exit from them. When called out on your own lack of thought, you doubled down and tried to explain why your version of reality was more important than what was already shown in the picture or video.

Now you have added cost as a factor, but have obviously not thought at all about this either. A subway or monorail would have at least the same cost for stations (likely much higher) and you still have to build a monorail track (more expensive) or a subway system (vastly more expensive). Even the summary mentions the bus would be only 20% the cost of an underground train. (You did read the summary at least I hope).

You don't need to convince me this system is a joke, I already mentioned I thought it was "silly" and "impractical". I've been to China and seen first hand how they drive. Seems like what you are really trying to do, is convince yourself that you had thought about it as much as you were telling other people to do. Is it working?

If you had put even a fraction of as much effort into your initial assessment as you have in your attempt to squirm out of admitting you were wrong, you may have even realised all this for yourself.

Sorry can't change lanes or open my door right now

[Anonymous Coward]

That damn bus is over me again!

Um, moving walls?

[holophrastic]

So, you're driving along, and all of a sudden, a wall appears around you, then vanishes, then appears again.

Hope you brought your sun glasses, and removed them, and put them on again, with your psychic powers.

Also hope you didn't plan on changing lanes, and weren't in the middle of doing so.

It's not the same as 40 busses. 40 busses come 40 times as often. Now you get to wait for the big-ass bus 40 times as long. Perfect.

How about just admitting that you can't fit more stuff into less space, and still have it usable. Archive-storage doesn't work for civilized humans -- intiguingly, it works far better for rural/country humans.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anybody actual read TFA? The underside of the bus is lit to match the environment. The bus is as wide as the road, so you don't change lanes outside the bus. The height is sufficient for a semi-trailer, so your SUV is safe. And the interior looks quite spacious.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[holophrastic]

I don't think you read it. It's a two-lane bus. On a three-lane road, it ain't the full width.

As for the lighting, we don't believe it. You think they're going to put a light as bright as the sun? They mean sunny vs overcast vs night. They don't mean a celestial object.

Clearly, your argument isn't worth anything, since you aren't willing to put your name to it.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Livius]

It's not meant to replace regular surface buses, it's meant to replace building a hugely expensive subway line.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Anonymous Coward]

When there's too many straddling buses and they get backed up, then they'll make an even wider stradling bus stradling bus. That's why they're leaving the third lane.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[holophrastic]

How about focusing on building communities where 99% of the population doesn't need to travel continuously?

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Captain Splendid]

It's straddle buses all the way down.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[kellymcdonald78]

Yes, I know how I have horrible car accidents every time I drive under an overpass or into a tunnel

Re:Um, moving walls?

[holophrastic]

Is the tunnel moving? Does it come at you from behind? Do you like that sort of thing?

Re:Um, moving walls?

[bfpierce]

Are you fucking kidding me here? lol

Re:Um, moving walls?

[MachineShedFred]

except without any of the advantages that rail usually has, like not stopping for cross traffic, or having to stop and wait if someone has a crash in the middle of an intersection.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[holophrastic]

Never said walking distance. How about a 10-mile radius? Is 300 square miles enough for you? That's a residential suburb population of 50'000. That's in houses. You can quadruple that in a metropolis. Add people who work from home. Add the perfectly reasonable 25% who actually do break the radius.

I think that you're forgetting the cost to your city in terms of constnt commuting -- both in hours of work, hours of home, value growth of home, education of children, family time, road maintenance, and pollution. I think you'll find diminishing returns in most commuter environments.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Anubis IV]

There are other concerns as well. For instance, based on the video, they re-display traffic lights to people under the bus, that way they know when to stop at a red light, but that seems like it should be a non-problem, since every light rail system I've seen (which is what this really is, rather than a bus) was designed to co-opt the lights so that they turn green for it. If they do that, however, I could see this thing going along for miles and miles with people vying to stay under it in order to keep getting green lights the entire way, while a few unfortunate people remain trapped under there in the middle, wanting to take turns onto side streets along the way but unable to do so because of everyone jockeying to get under the bus and benefit from the green lights.

And if it does stop at red lights, can I take a turn on red like I can at a normal intersection if I'm at the head of the line that's under it? I'm guessing not, since you're liable to get hit by it when the light turns green, so that means you'd need to sit there and wait for the entire bus to pass before making your turn.

Maybe if this thing was going well above the speed limit and flipped lights to green along the way it could work better, but you'd still get situations like someone taking a turn across the rail and not seeing this thing coming from behind.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[cellocgw]

It's straddle buses all the way down.

I think you meant "up" , not "down."

But I have an Even Cooler Idea (TM). Hang loops from the underside of the bus. People in cars can deploy a hook-arm to attach and get a free tow!

Re:Um, moving walls?

[crimson tsunami]

Wouldn't that be all the way up?

Re:Um, moving walls?

[holophrastic]

Nice observation. You're bang-on.

I think we can generally conclude that intermingling two forms of transportation is always a dumb idea. Streetcars vs cars, cars vs bicycles, bicycles vs pedestrians, trains vs cars. Rules-of-the-road take into account the capabilities of the vessels. Drastically different capabilities would make rules-of-the-road (lights, turning, signaling, visibility, et cetera) forever impossible.

You've accidentally brought up yet another point -- what happens when this giant bus thing turns? It holds 1'400 people. It's huge. It'll block visibility of so many things.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Anubis IV]

Last I checked, tunnels don't catch you unawares to hit you from behind if you decide to take a turn, which is what this thing has the ability to do. The biggest problem isn't with the people who have gone through the tunnel (like what you're talking about), since they'll know it's there. The problem is with the people who have no clue that the tunnel is there because it's coming from behind them while they're getting ready to take a turn across the rail it's on.

The most common way to deal with this problem is a rail crossing (i.e. prevent people from turning across the path of a train they may not be able to see), but in the examples presented here, they have the rails straddling two lanes on a three lane street, meaning that one of those rails is in between two lanes of the road. Because you can't make the entire length of the street a giant rail crossing, there's no easy way to make this sort of thing work. Someone who doesn't see the bus coming will at some point want to change lanes across that rail, won't have any obvious indication that the bus is coming since the only part of the bus visible from road level will be a stilt that's a few inches wide, and will suddenly have a very bad day on their hands.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[ceoyoyo]

Doesn't seem like that big a problem.

Downtown in cities, particularly in the ones this thing was designed for, there usually isn't much direct sunlight. People somehow manage to survive driving past buildings that block the sun. And tunnels. My city built a bunch of tunnels with concrete sunshades, I guess to ease the transition into and out of them. Then the shades started falling on the traffic so they removed them. It wasn't a problem.

When you change lanes you need to check for cars in the lane you're changing into. Checking for a big ass 1200 person bus while you're at it shouldn't be an issue.

This thing is two lanes wide, which probably means at least four times the capacity per unit length. Plus it doesn't have to get stuck in traffic like regular busses so you're unlikely to be waiting for long.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Anubis IV]

When you change lanes you need to check for cars in the lane you're changing into. Checking for a big ass 1200 person bus while you're at it shouldn't be an issue.

At street level, the bus is only a few inches wide, moves at 60km/hr, and travels along rails that in some cases lie between the lanes. You might as well ask people to be alert for lane-straddling 60km/hr bicyclists approaching from behind when they go to change lanes, except in this case, hitting the "bicyclist" will put over 1400 people in danger, instead of just a few.

Traditionally, light rail systems (which is what this really is) put their rails along the outermost or innermost parts of the street, rather than in the middle, so that they inconvenience as few people as possible while still preventing people from passing in front of them when the train is approaching. In this case, however, because the rail runs between lanes in the street, you'd need to have the rail crossing run the entire length of the street, which simply isn't feasible.

Maybe when self-driving cars are a thing, this could work, but until then, it won't work unless you redesign the roads so that the bus can straddle the entire road and rail crossings can be added.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[neoritter]

Why not login and prove your boasts of a 5 digit id? Should be simple.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[thegarbz]

Also hope you didn't plan on changing lanes, and weren't in the middle of doing so.

Hahhaha that's cute. You think the Chinese have lanes.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[thegarbz]

It's a two-lane bus. On a three-lane road, it ain't the full width.

No it's a 2 lane bus on an irrelevant lane road, because that's what lane markings in most Chinese cities are. When there's even a slight amount of traffic buildup you'll typically find 4 or sometimes even 5 cars side by side in those 3 lanes honking at each other as they go.

Even if this was a good idea it just isn't a good idea in China.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[kellymcdonald78]

I generally don't adjust with my sunglasses every time I go trough a tunnel or drive under a bridge. My car also has something called a rear view mirror

Re:Um, moving walls?

[kellymcdonald78]

You shouldn't be caught unaware by anything approaching from behind, that's why you have a rear view mirror. When changing lanes, you're also supposed to shoulder check to see if anything is coming up behind you. Now while I agree a two lane bus, spanning a three lane road is unlikely to be practical (you would want it to span the entire roadway, and on/off ramps will pose an issue), lets not come up with knee jerk objections to things we do every day when we drive normally (e.g. a bus driving over you and blocking out the sun, isn't going to make you loose control, any more than driving under a bridge does)

Re:Um, moving walls?

[Anubis IV]

I agree that the sun concern isn't much of an issue at all and that some of the other concerns are easily designed around, but I do think that putting one of the rails in the middle of traffic is a recipe for disaster. The stilts are only a few inches wide, making them hard to see in rearview mirrors, and can come up on you at 60km/hr, meaning that they're unlikely to be visible at the time that you do a shoulder check when changing lanes. In another post, I suggested it would be akin to having to watch out for 60km/hr bicyclists who are traveling along the dashed lines between lanes.

As you suggested, the stilts should straddle the entire road, or else they should take an entirely different approach (e.g. elevated platform), but at that point, you're talking about monorails or else having to redesign the roads entirely to make this system work.

It's a neat idea, but in practice it has a lot of issues that would need to be worked through.

Re:Um, moving walls?

[holophrastic]

You screwed up. You corrected my numbers by keeping the 300 square miles. Try again, but this time correct my numbers my keeping my population density.

Popular Mechanics? 1930s?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall an article from an old magazine, perhaps Popular Mechanics or Popular Science, that presented the idea of a bus that straddles over the imagined traffic jams of the future.

Yeah, and then there were the ideas of a circular airport in the middle of the city and air planes would build up speed on the banked track.

Re:Popular Mechanics? 1930s?

[Sique]

I'm pretty sure to have seen similar concepts in 1960ies tech magazines too. Yes, the idea of having a second layer for traffic on the same roads has some appeal, but I'm convinced that, except for some proof-of-concept tracks, it will not be used.

Re:Popular Mechanics? 1930s?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure to have seen similar concepts in 1960ies tech magazines too.

Yep, you can find those concepts over at RetroFuturism
That doesn't mean that it was possible to get the technology to work back then.

One thing that is a bit funny to me is all those flying cars concepts.
Whenever a "flying car" concept shows up on slashdot there are a plenty of people claiming that a flying car shouldn't have wings just because the one they saw on Jetsons didn't have wings, yet the vast majority of old flying car concepts from the 60ies and earlier looks surprisingly much like modern helicopters and planes.

Re:Hidden expense

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

Cars will crash into the legs of this thing. Then the bus will crash down and kill people.

FTFY

Your horn

[penguinoid]

Bumper sticker on the bus says "Your horn will not make me produce stilts to lift myself out of your way."

Re:Your horn

[Anonymous Coward]

I like mine: "Press horn to see bird"

Bridges?

[coldsalmon]

Looked like a good idea until I remembered that bridges exist. It would have to be at least 10 feet higher than the largest trucks, so it likely couldn't be used on any roads that have anything above them. Where I live, this is virtually all roads. However, in areas without a lot of bridges I could see this being a pretty good idea. For roads that ban trucks and also have no bridges, it would work best, but I'm not sure how common that is. Also, how the heck is it going to turn? I could see this working on some of the perfectly straight avenues in Manhattan, but you'd have to move the traffic lights. At least it's fun to think about!

Re:Bridges?

[thegarbz]

Looked like a good idea

It looks like a good idea until you see how the Chinese drive. Anything that splits the lanes will be stuck in the 5 car wide on the 3 lane road traffic jam along with the rest of the country who thinks if only I can get one car further forward it will be better.

Re:Bridges?

[93 Escort Wagon]

... along with the rest of the country who thinks if only I can get one car further forward it will be better.

This part sounds like drivers in pretty much any country in the world.

Re:Bridges?

[thegarbz]

This part sounds like drivers in pretty much any country in the world.

Indeed, but with an order of magnitude more amazement. I fondly remember my time in China where my driver would pull out of traffic and drive 10m down the incoming lane flashing his lights and honking his horn to try and get to where we're going a bit faster, only to be stopped by someone who won't give way and then needing to nudge his way back into line.

Drivers in general are impatient people, but the Chinese drive like an inpatients aptitude test was part of their driving school (and it is. Standard way to pull into a T-intersection is to move your car slowly further forward until you've consume enough space that no one can get around you anymore. Then you have right of way).

It was another world.

It's a tram/train not a bus

[HumanWiki]

It's stuck to and rides upon rails. It's not a bus, it's a train or tram.

Re: It's a tram/train not a bus

[Sique]

Here around, we have the concept of a railbus. It's technically a bus except it doesn't have a steering wheel, and it runs on rails.

Re: It's a tram/train not a bus

[Sique]

Sorry for the mangled link. On my mobile device, there seems to be no preview button.

A great idea because

[Anonymous Coward]

Drivers always stay precisely centered in their lanes when an overhead tunnel slides up on them from behind. Yeah, right.

Use space above roads?

[PPH]

Monorail. Problem solved.

Re:Use space above roads?

[bgarcia]

I think this "straddling bus" concept might be less expensive and easier to maintain than a monorail or other elevated platform system. You don't need miles upon miles of infrastructure - just regular old rails. So refurbishment of the track should be easier and less expensive.

The busses themselves will be more expensive and more of a pain to work on - you'll need a big garage to house them. And crashing one of these could end up being a lot more catastrophic, since taking out a leg would cause it to fall.

Re:Use space above roads?

[aliquis]

I guess one better not decide to change lane.

Re:Use space above roads?

[kimgkimg]

Or hyperloop. Why stick to regular roadway speeds?

Re:Use space above roads?

[PPH]

we have one here in Seattle.

I'm in Seattle. And that 1960's technology monorail is better than the above ground portions of the new light rail system.

Useless except for ferrying tourists between the Seattle Center and Westlake mall

Because Sound Transit didn't want any competition.

with an ugly "zone of death" beneath it the full length of 5th Avenue.

That's the old technology. And it's only a problem for drunk drivers who try to weave between the columns.

Re:Use space above roads?

[PPH]

How do you decide to change lanes now?

Like most of the MFFYs do now. They just pull out and expect oncoming traffic to stop for them.

Re:Use space above roads?

[bugs2squash]

In many cities you can see one bus stop from the next. Getting up to 700mph between them and back down in time to stop might spill the passenger's coffee.

Re:Use space above roads?

[aliquis]

In car traffic if everyone drive as they should you're more or less moving at the same speed.

This motherfucker however supposedly come at 60 km / h when the cars are ~standing still.

Also the result of the crash won't be the same, if a car drives into you then that's bad, if this huge fucking train cart runs into you however ..

Re:Use space above roads?

[aliquis]

What has driving skills got to do with not wanting to possibly have your car run over by a huge fucking ship-style train?

I think transportation should be solved in an individual way with light-weight vehicles instead but then again I'm from Sweden and not from China so the population density and size of the cities are different.
I don't have the need for a train this size to go where I want to go. Something the weight of say a Segway or whatever would have much less kinetic energy and be safer for anything it run into and in a scenario where lots of people need to in the same direction in the same place they could easily communicate and keep track of each other and work as a united platform anyway (possibly with more of the risks again, as in being run over by 20 Segways =P)
I guess it may be less energy efficiency than a train though, I don't know where from the energy efficiency of a train come if it's from less rolling resistance or simply more weight moved per surface area / air resistance (likely?) or what the "magic" is.

A small vehicle for one person will of course be more efficient than a large one which just carry one person anyway though.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[Jzanu]

Old news. Just new hype. http://www.chinahush.com/2010/...

Not a real thing, not practical in almost any area that needs high capacity transit, and just a distraction from real things we already know how to build but refuse to pay for.

Parent is absolutely NOT off-topic, in fact it is insightful.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[Lumpy]

And bad hype. Look at the renders, they did not even bother rendering a simulation, the whole thing bends around the corner instead of the segments.

It will never exist, they do not have the tech to build it and they miss an important part... like how does traffic EXIT and ENTER the roadway?

What makes more sense is simply build a traditional elevated train or monorail. Instead they want to build this unservicable monstrosity.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[bhcompy]

I wouldn't say not practical. Just not as practical as building an elevated train, which is much cheaper than a subway. The problem with elevated trains is the nimbys hate them. Fuck the nimbys.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[cam_macleod]

Indeed. Headline is "unveils", and yet. Oh well, moderators gonna moderate.

Re:Sorry can't change lanes or open my door right

[sumdumass]

So much for that solar powered hybrid electric car you just purchased to save the environment and cut fuel costs.

a hallucination of the Gernsback continuum

[Thud457]

Sounds like the wild eyed futurism of "Closer than we think by Arthur Radebaugh

Of course, in the future world of 2016, we have robot rocket-ships that return to base and land automatically, so who are we to sneer?

Better idea

[fustakrakich]

Instead of moving people, let's put the buildings on wheels so they can come to us.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the nimbys.

But not in their own back yard...

Junctions?

[petes_PoV]

Fine until it comes to a road (or another of these "buses") that intersects its route.

I guess it could be made to work if you were designing and building an entirely new city from scratch, but I doubt if this concept could be backed into an existing city, especially one with narrow, winding, streets.

Re:Junctions?

[CanadianMacFan]

Why would it be such a problem? Streetcars and railways have dealt with these problems for over a century.

Re:Hidden expense

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars can easily crash into regular buses too, yet we still have both cars and buses.

Re:I believe this merits a song

[neoritter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This? In China?

[LynnwoodRooster]

It will never work. Anyone who's been to China realizes that lane markers are just "suggestions" and that snarled messes - with 7 cars abreast in a 4 lane road - is the norm, not the exception. Add in the fact you have intersections like XiZang Lu and Yan'an Dong Lu where it goes (from left to right): Straight, Left, Left, Straight, Right, Straight, Right, Straight, Left? What do you straddle?

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[ShanghaiBill]

There are lots of problems with this design. It doesn't deal with pedestrians, bicycles, and scooters that use the space between cars. It also doesn't handle trucks, or roof racks, that stick up above the height of a normal car. I cannot go under bridges or overpasses, or through intersections with suspended traffic lights. It doesn't even deal with people opening car doors to enter or exit. The design is just silly, and nobody should take it seriously.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[ShanghaiBill]

Just not as practical as building an elevated train, which is much cheaper than a subway.

A dedicated lane for self-driving buses, vans, and taxis would be even cheaper.

2 Meters clearance?

[Macdude]

I'm just a touch over two meters tall, add in shoes and I'm almost 2 cm's over. The bus needs more clearance.

Re:2 Meters clearance?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I'm just a touch over two meters tall, add in shoes and I'm almost 2 cm's over. The bus needs more clearance.

Sounds like that'd be more YOUR problem than the busses problem... :-D

Anyone remember Supercar?

[Radyair]

The animation reminds me of those Supermarionation TV shows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[jopsen]

A dedicated lane for self-driving buses, vans, and taxis would be even cheaper.

Yeah, dedicated bus lanes could be rolled out in a matter of weeks, with nothing more than a few new road signs...
I don't even think they would need to be self-driving... And in China they ought to have the political power to do it.
Nobody is going to seriously complain in China...

If number of buses increased dramatically and all bus routes became bus-only lanes, they might even solve the smog and traffic issues they have.

Re:Dumb idea...

[gnupun]

This sounds very similar too... elevated light rail transit, which we KNOW how to build now.

Except, it costs a lot of money and real estate to elevate the track. Instead, you save a ton of money and real estate by elevating just the bus/train and keeping the train track at road level.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[bhcompy]

As long as people live and work where the bus goes somewhat efficiently(as in it doesn't take my to the next town over and back to get to my destination, or I don't have to transfer 5 times). I have no idea how urban/suburban China is laid out, but it's definitely problematic in many other places.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[BKX]

Nope, those are stupid as fuck. We have one here in GR, and the bus is still slow as ever, and now traffic on Division is worse than before the damn Silver Line.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[Nehmo]

There are lots of problems with this design. It doesn't deal with pedestrians, bicycles, and scooters that use the space between cars. It also doesn't handle trucks, or roof racks, that stick up above the height of a normal car. I cannot go under bridges or overpasses, or through intersections with suspended traffic lights. It doesn't even deal with people opening car doors to enter or exit. The design is just silly, and nobody should take it seriously.

Solving those problems is simple. Build an even higher bus to go over this one! - and so on.

For U.S. Small Vehicles Public Transportation

[BrendaEM]

Public transportation is so pro-terrorism, anti-privacy, and pro-monopoly.

In northern California, they call the bus service the "Valley Transportation Authority."
What pompous bull$hit. You give a few people a little power....

Re:For U.S. Small Vehicles Public Transportation

[BrendaEM]

My "> was deleted in the title.

Concept Art

[pellik]

Here's a nice hand drawn sketch of what the mock-up is supposed to look like.

Re:Literally six years old, still not real/practic

[ShanghaiBill]

I have no idea how urban/suburban China is laid out

Really, really badly. American cities have been designed to accommodate traffic for a century. But in China, even 20 years ago, 95% of the people used bicycles.

Have u ever driven in China?!?!?!

[martinfb]

The general rule for driving in China is - no rules; and roadway lines mean nothing! I have been there! Drivers are insane! I cannot see this 'Straddle Bus' working, since other drivers ignore lines, signs, lights, and everything else! I once had a ride up the pedestrian walk in a cab! Unbelievable. Felt a bit analygous to a monkey with a machine gun!