The Bus That Rides Above Traffic 371
An anonymous reader writes "China is the new tech king. They're developing a new, two-lane bus system that travels over traffic below. It's claimed to cost 10% of a subway system and use 30% less energy than current bus technologies." This one has been boggling my brain. I can't see how this is a good idea or safe. But it sure is awesome.
Shades of Oakland (Score:1, Interesting)
Someone should send them pics of the Oakland freeway that collapsed in an earthquake - back in the 90's, was it? During a World Series. Isn't much of China an earthquake zone?
Congestion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't you get trapped under a bus when there's congestion and end up missing your destination?
Re:Looks nifty assuming no one crashes into the ra (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah I'm not sure how this will interact with the way the Chinese drive. My wife has been there for business before, and she says that while Chinese people are generally better drivers than people here in the states, they have to be because the streets are like a giant game of no-contact bumper cars. People basically just do whatever the hell they want.
Truck "Repellent" System (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they have trucks in that area? Wouldn't that pose a minor issue?
I don't speak Chinese but from watching the video it appears that there is a warning signal when a truck is detected as approaching from behind or in front of the bus. In addition to this there are black and yellow poles that apparently act as truck detractors like the upside down U-shaped hoops in lawn croquet. The bus would fit over these perfectly but a truck in this same section of traffic would hit one of these before endangering the bus. It appears that this would designate which lanes are okay for trucks (however they then also pose a bit of a traffic obstacle where they come down in between lanes).
My bigger concern is turning and how the sections bend and twist between themselves (as seen at around 5:30 in the video). Is this on a rail or not? Because I could see that being potentially problematic and accident prone if drivers fail to yield to you. I'm interested that they're already planning on deploying this as I think there are things to iron out yet.
China 2010 = America, c. 1955 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Looks cool, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the use of the word 'bus' is problematic here.
I think of it more as a substitute for light rail.
I don't see it being too useful for new developments, but I could definitely see it being useful in areas where you can't just add another lane for busses or put light rail on its own. A lot of our cities are built up.
So the alternative is either bore underground with an expensive subway, go overhead with an expensive skytrain (like vancouver), or do something like this. I'm idealizing a bit here just from the video. But if the only infrastructure needed in the guide rail... it could definitely be cheaper.
Safety wise... no doubt there are issues. I'm especially worried about drivers thinking they are going to miss their turn while being stuck under the bus. They might end up doing some stupid things. I really dont see trucks swerving out of the way like in the video. They would probably either be content to stay behind the bus or go the next lane gradullay.
Re:Since when... (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean like ... china, paper, woodblock printing, gunpowder, compass, the fork, fireworks, go, maglev wind power generators, negative numbers, menus, tea, toilet paper or the toothbrush?
I mean, granted, not all of these are new things - in fact most of them are all fairly old (the maglev being the exception), but I really doubt any of us would want to go without them.
Wierd, yes. Possible, maybe. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a fascinating idea. Some postings claim that construction will start this year, but it seems unlikely. They'd have to build a prototype and a test track first, and if they had that, there would be pictures.
The thing runs on road wheels, not tracks. Steering is at least semi-automated, to keep it properly positioned. It's electrically powered, with recharging as it passes through stations. The electrical contact mechanism for recharging, as drawn, is wildly optimistic about the difficulties of making contact with a moving vehicle. The illustrations show solar cells atop buses and stations, but no way can those yield enough power for this thing.
They're vague about how the articulated bus corners. The trick with articulated buses is avoiding crush points. Real articulated buses have turntables and bellows at the joints, and they narrow at the join region. That's going to be tough with a vehicle this wide. Also, it's not at all clear how transitions to hills are handled. Does it articulate in pitch, too? All that can be made to work; San Francisco, of all places, has large articulated buses. The joints were troublesome at first, but the second generation of joints seems to work adequately.
Also, on sharp turns, there had better not be cars underneath.
The emergency evacuation slide system is a bit much, as is the roof entry stair system.
Re:Shades of Oakland (Score:3, Interesting)
All it takes is one fucktard in a dump truck straddling the line a bit too close, and the entire bus collapses. Cute.
Of course, this is China. They'll shoot the fucktard, repair the bus, and the next day none of the state-run newspapers will dare carry the story because it embarasses The Party.
Yet another of those "well it seems like a good idea until we really think about it" concepts, kind of like the Segway (only useful/practical in some really, really niche markets) and moving walkways (useful in airports sometimes, not really practical for city streets).
Reality (Score:1, Interesting)
I've been to China many times and this idea will be a disaster (especially Beijing and Xi'an). They drive recklessly with a blatant disregard to safety for themselves and others. This bus idea will either slice through cars on a daily basis as the cars weave around the bus' struts or be stuck in traffic with the rest of the cars since the drivers in China don't really obey lane lines.
Re:Terrorism (Score:3, Interesting)
Guaranteed easy kill for any wannabe terrorists who drive a loaded truck or car bomb underneath this bus. Stupid idea.
I don't think you realize how easy it is to kill lots of people with a car bomb already. This thing won't improve the kill ratio by even 2:1 and may even lower it because the bus would likely contain the explosion somewhat.
Re:Looks cool, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
I RTFA and the video.
It's sounds easier to upgrade then building subway.
In the video, the presenter said either rail on the level could be embedded (like light rail) to save energy, or have the bus run on wheel and follow solid white line painted on the road.
Energy are solved when the bus travels under the charge poles attached to light poles, as well as charging the super-capacitor at each station (BTW they are running super-capacitor bus in the Expo, Shanghai).
Re:Looks nifty assuming no one crashes into the ra (Score:4, Interesting)
Horse. Shit.
And I have proof.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QESfEd180rQ [youtube.com]
Re:Some translation points... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think I *might* have an explanation for one of the points - I'm not sure if this is why you put (???) at the end of this point, but let's look at it:
"each vehicle reduces use of gasoline 864 tons and green house gas 2640 tons"
How can the amount of "green house gas" reduced be that much *greater* than the amount of gasoline reduction? I think it's because CO2 combines 1 Carbon from the fuel with 2 Oxygen from the atmosphere, (also, hydrogen in the fuel gets combined with oxygen to form water vapor, I think, but I'm not sure that counts as a 'greenhouse gas').
Anyhow, atomic weight of Carbon-12 (I believe the most abundant isotope) is 12, atomic weight of Oxygen-16 (most abundant isotope) is approx 16. I believe the atomic weight of CO2, then, would be about 44, making CO2 about 3.66 times 'heavier' than the carbon in the fuel. Of course, the fuel isn't completely carbon, but it certainly has a high percentage of its weight as carbon. I think that is how 864 tons of gasoline can become 2640 tons of "greenhouse gas", but not sure about that.